Date of Publication December 2010

Proceedings of

THE INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT OF
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Published by Rits-DMUCH(Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of
Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University)
Komatsubara Kita-machi. Kita-ku. Kyoto 603-8341, Japan
Tel: (81)-75-467-8801
Fax: (81)-75-467-8825

Coordinated by: Kanefusa Masuda, Rohit Jigyasu, Naoko Itaya
Edited by: Kai Weise, Abhaya Subba Weise
Design and Layout: Manohar Rai

All illustrations and diagrams have beentaken from the respective presentations.
Where possible credit has been given.

Copyright 2010
By Rits-DMUCH. All rights reserved.

2010, 5th year,
13th to 26th September 2010,
Kyoto, Kobe, Sasayama, JapanICOMOS ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING,“Sustainable Protection and Recovery of Cultural Heritage in Post Disaster Situation”,
25th to 26th September 2010 at Kyoto, Japan

140th Anniversary of the Ritsumeikan Academy,
110th Anniversary of Ritsumeikan University,
RITSUMEIKAN UNIVERSITY AND ICOMOS-ICORPINTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM,”How to Protect Cultural Heritage from Disasters:
Risk Preparedness and Post Disaster Recovery”,
26th September 2010 at Kyoto, Japan

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In response to the increasing vulnerability of cultural heritage properties
to various hazards such as earthquakes, fire, floods and cyclones,
the Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University, and Kyoto organized the Fifth International
Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage aspart of its UNESCO Chair Programme.
In the light of devastating Haiti earthquake that struck on January 2010,
this year’s training course focused on emergency response and long term
recovery of wooden and composite cultural heritage from earthquake andfire. The course was organized in Kyoto, Kobe and Sasayama from 13 to
26 September 2010 and was attended by five teams of two participants
each, from Turkey, Peru, Bhutan, Palau and Serbia.
During the course, classroom lectures, workshops and practicaldemonstrations were organized at the World Heritage Sites in Kyoto,
Kobe and historic area of Sasayama.
Towards the end of the training course, ICOMOS-ICORP Scientific
Meeting on sustainable protection and recovery of cultural heritage inpost disaster situation was organized from 24 to 27 September 2010.
The meeting discussed measures for addressing cultural heritage
requirements during post disaster recovery process such as documentation,
damage assessment, emergency protection and repair and interventions
aimed at reducing future disaster risks. The meeting was attended byrenowned international experts and members of ICOMOS-ICORP.
On behalf of Ritsumeikan University and other partners of the
training course, and ICOMOS-ICORP, we would like to sincerely thank
Mr. Kai Weise, consultant to UNESCO Kathmandu office and his teamfor painstakingly going through all the deliberations of these events andputting together this comprehensive and richly illustrated document.
Thanks are also due to all those including the staff of Ritsumeikan
University, who helped in organizing these events and contributed in
making it a success.

Section One: Background
1.1 Introduction and Objectives
1.2 Schedule
1.3 Participants and Lecturers

2
2
6
8

Section Two: Team Projects of Training Course
Disaster Risk Management Plan for Cultural Heritage Sites
2.1 Bhutan
2.2 Palau
2.3 Peru
2.4 Republic of Serbia
2.5 Republic of Turkey

12
12
14
16
18
20

Kanefusa Masuda & Rohit Jigyasu
Professors, Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan

Section Three: Report on ICOMOS-ICORP Scientific Meeting“Sustainable Protection and Recovery of Cultural Heritage in
Post Disaster Situation”
3.1 Issues and Challenges for World Heritage Properties by
Giovanni Boccardi
3.2 Bhutan by Junko Mukai
3.3 Nepal by Kai Weise
3.4 Philippines by Victoria Gill
3.5 Indonesia by Yumi Akieda
3.6 Japan by K. Masuda
3.7 Taiwan by Shang-Chia Chiou
3.8 Korea by Byungha Choi
3.9 Potential collaboration between ICCROM and ICORP by
Daijiro Kitagawa
3.10 UNESCO Hague Convention and its Second Protocol by
Akatsuki Takahashi
3.11 New Zealand by Robyn Riddett
3.12 United Kingdom by Sue Cole
3.13 Mongolia (2) by Chris Marrion
3.14 Finland (2) by Minna Perähuhta
3.15 Peru (2) by Teresa Vilcapoma Huapaya

22
23
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
47
48

Section Four: Report on International Symposium
4.1 Keynote Speech 1 by Gustavo Araoz
4.2 Keynote Speech 2 by Kenzo Toki
4.3 Keynote Speech 3 by Moe Chiba
4.3 Keynote Speech 4 by Kanefusa Masuda
4.4 Panel Discussion

50
51
57
60
66
68

Annex: ICOMOS-ICORP MISSION STATEMENT

77

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUNDSECTION 1
BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction and Objectives
Disasters and Cultural Heritage

2

Recent destructive earthquake in
Haiti on 12 January 2010 has caused
enormous loss of life, property
and cultural heritage especially inthe historic area of Jacmel. Thisdisaster has once again shownthat cultural heritage is highly
vulnerable to natural disasters suchas earthquake and fire. In the postdisaster phase, the challenge is
how to salvage heritage properties,
which are at risk of demolition andto assess their damage. The longterm challenge during recovery
phase is how to repair and retrofit
them and undertake reconstructionthat respects tangible as well as
intangible heritage values. This event
also brings forward the challenges
of engaging various stakeholders at
the local, national, regional as wellas international levels for protecting
cultural heritage during such severe
situations.
In the light of these challenges,
comprehensive risk management
is essential for the protection ofcultural heritage from disasters.
Therefore Cultural Heritage and Risk
Management project of Ritsumeikan
University Research Center for
Disaster Mitigation of Urban
Cultural Heritage (Rits DMUCH)
aims to organize the UNESCO

Chair International Training
Programme and develop a scientificsupport network, in order to build
the institutional capacity needed
to formulate comprehensive risk
management plans that are basedon the characteristics of cultural
heritage and nature of hazards in theregional context.
Ritsumeikan University and its
Training Course
UNESCO Chair Programme on
the International Training Course
on Disaster Risk Managementof Cultural Heritage is a followup of the recommendations
adopted at the Special Thematic
Session on Risk Management for
Cultural Heritage held at UNWCDR (World Conference on
Disaster Reduction) in January2005 in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
One of these recommendations
advocated the need for the academic
community to develop scientificresearch, education and training
programs incorporating cultural
heritage in both its tangible andintangible manifestations, into risk
management and disaster recovery.
The importance of strengthening
knowledge, innovation andeducation to build a culture ofProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japandisaster prevention at WH properties
was reiterated also by the World
Heritage Committee at its 30th
session (Vilnius, Lithuania, July
2006).
Furthermore, the "Declaration",
adopted at the International Disaster
Reduction Conference (IDRC) of
Davos (August 2006) confirmedthat 'concern for heritage, bothtangible and intangible, should
be incorporated into disaster risk
reduction strategies and plans, which
are strengthened through attention
to cultural attributes and traditional
knowledge'.
In response to theserecommendations by theinternational community, Rits
DMUCH has been acting as a focal
point for organizing international
research, training and information
network in the field of cultural
heritage risk management anddisaster mitigation.
The previous training courses havebeen attended by participants from
Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bhutan,
Bangladesh, Iran, P.R.China,

Korea, Philippines, Indonesia,
Taiwan, Serbia and Moldova Last
year’s training Course was heldin Kyoto (Japan) and Kathmandu(Nepal). In the Kathmandu part, tenparticipants from Nepal participatedas observers.
Objectives and Methodology of theTraining Course
The main objective of the course
is to provide an overview of thevarious facets of disaster risk
management of cultural heritage.
The course provides interdisciplinary
training for professionals to:• Undertake an integrated
risk assessment to analyze thevulnerability of cultural heritage
to physical, socioeconomic andpolitical risks;• Build an integrated system fordisaster risk management of cultural
heritage, incorporating disaster
preparedness and urban planning;• Formulate risk management plansfor cultural heritage that correspondto the regional disaster management
plan; and• Establish aninternational scientificnetwork system for risk
management of cultural
heritage.
The course comprises
lectures, site visits,
workshops, discussions
and individual/group presentations.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

3

BACKGROUND

4BACKGROUND

Participants are expected to actively
participate throughout the course.
The course aims at promoting thedevelopment of collaborations andnetwork building among scholars
and professionals in cultural heritage
protection.

for choosing participants with thesupport of ICCROM. As a result,in 2007 which was the second year
for training course, we invited eightparticipants from Bangladesh, China,
Peru and Philippines for the training
course.

Based on the information obtained
from lectures and site visits, andexercises through workshops, thetraining course also sets the goal ofraising planning skills in cultural
heritage disaster prevention, by
having each participant make aplan during team project for theprevention of disaster to his/hercountry’s cultural heritage, in linewith each country’s respective socialand economic situation. In orderto do so, the Centre has asked theparticipants to prepare the relevantmaterials before coming to Japan,
so that the two participants fromeach country could learn from eachother’s experience through thisprocess.

In 2008, which was the third year
for the training course, sevenparticipants were invited from
Bhutan, Iran, Nepal and Serbia.
We also invited 2 experts from
Taiwan as observer. Last year’s
training course had participants from
Moldova, China, Jamaica and Nepal(refer to the previous participants
lists).

In 2006, which was the first year for
training course, eight participantsfrom four countries were invited,
namely India and Pakistan, where agreat earthquake occurred in 2005 in
Kashmir, Indonesia, which suffered
Indian Ocean Tsunami triggered by
the Sumatra Earthquake in 2004 andby the Earthquake on the JavaneseIsland in 2006; and Korea, which
had suffered a big forest fire.

Organizers and Participants

We, Rits-DMUCH exchanged MoU
with ICCROM and made a criterion

Last year’s training course (2009)
had participants from Moldova,
China, Jamaica and Nepal (referto the previous participants lists).
Besides Kathmandu part of the
training course had observers fromlocal municipalities, university andcultural institutions.

The training course is organizedin cooperation with the UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, ICCROM,
ICOMOS and relevant institutions of
the government of Japan.
Participants will include managersof cultural heritage, disaster risk
management experts, decision
makers and government officials
involved in cultural properties ordisaster management.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Focus of the Fifth International
Training Course 2010
In the light of Haiti earthquake, thisyear’s training course will especially
focus on emergency response andlong term recovery of wooden andcomposite cultural heritage fromearthquake and fire. The following
areas will be considered at greater
depth during this year’s course:

During the course, Rits DMUCH
will also provide various kindsof academic support to theparticipants to help them develop
risk management plans for cultural
heritage in their own countries. For
this purpose, each country team will
jointly select one cultural heritagesite in their respective country before
attending the course.

• How to prevent fire in wooden
heritage of historic towns, especiallyfollowing an earthquake?
• What kind of emergency
preparedness and response systems
should be developed for protecting
cultural heritage properties
especially those which are located inurban areas at the time of disaster?
• What are the essentialconsiderations for assessing postdisaster damage to cultural heritage
properties?
• How to plan for long term recoveryof cultural heritage properties after
disaster through engagement of
stakeholders at local, national aswell as international levels?
The training course would include
field-based learning, classroom
lectures and practical demonstrations
at the World Heritage Sites in Kyoto,
Kobe and historic area of Sasayama.
In Kobe, the focus will be on lessons
learnt from recovery following 1995
Great Hanshin Awaji earthquake andin Sasayama area, the focus will be
community engagement in disasterrisk management plan at settlementlevel.
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

5

UNESCO Chair on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management
TIMETABLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE 2010, 5th year

THEME

9/13 (Mon)

1st

9/14 (Tue)INTRODUCTIONRISK ANALYSIS

6

Dinner

FIRE
PREVENTIONAND
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS

9/19 (Sun)

FORMULATING DRM PLAN 1

9/20 (Mon/Holiday)

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to KOBE

9:30-10:50 (80)Lecture 9
How to makethe EWSS
plan for
Sannei-zaka
ImportantPreservation
District?
(OKUBO)

10:00-13:00(180)Team Project
Formulating
DRM Plan forCase Study
Sites

8:00-10:00
Bus Transition to
Kobe

10:00-12:30(150)
Site Visit 1
World Heritage
Site inKiyomizu-dera
Temple(SHIRAISHI,
Kyoto Pref.)10:00-11:20 (80)Lecture 5
Seismic
Performanceof Japanese
Historical
Structures(IZUNO)

9:30-10:00
Move toNinnaji-Temple

Lecture 1
Orientation to
the Course andIntroduction to
the Context ofHistoric City of
Kyoto(MASUDA)

9:30-10:30 (60)
Lecture 4
Introduction
to Disaster
ImaginationGame (DIG)(OKUBO)

11:40-13:00 (80)Lecture 2
Earthquake
Engineering andDisaster Risk
Management
for Cultural
Heritage(TOKI)

10:30-11:30
Move toSannei-zaka
Area

11:30-13:00 (90)Site Visit 2
Sannei-zaka
ImportantPreservation
District forGroups of
Traditional
Buildings andSurrounding
Area(OKUBO)

10:00-12:30(150)
Site Visit 3
World Heritage
Site Fire
Prevention
Facilities at
Ninna-ji Temple(OMORI)Tea Break
11:40-13:00 (80)Lecture 6
Performance ofHistoric Masonry
Structures(FURUKAWA)

Tea Break
11:00-12:00(60)Lecture 10
International Cooperation for the
Rehabilitation ofEarthquakeAffected Cultural
Heritage

12:30-13:00
Move to DMUCH(AKIEDA,
National Institutefor CH)
12:00-13:00 (60)
Lecture 11
Outline of DRM
Plan for Heriage
Sites and its
Link with Site
Management
Plan(JIGYASU)

9/21 (Tue)RECOVERY PLANNING

9:00-10:00
Move toKiyomizu-dera
Temple10:00-11:30(90)Site Visit 4
the Great
Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake
Memorial:
Theater,
Exhibition(TAJIHI,Disaster
Reduction and
Human
Renovation
Institution)

9/22 (Wed)9/23 (Thu/Holiday)

FORMULATING DRM PLAN 2

9/24 (Fri)

9/25 (Sat)

9/26 (Sun)PRESENTATION ICOMOS –ICORP INTERNATIONALMEETINGSYMPOSIUM

to Sasayama-town

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to DMUCH

to …

to DMUCH

10:00-11:20(80)Lecture 12
Experienceof the Great
Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake:
DamageAssessment(MURAKAMI,
Hyogo Pref.)10:00-10:40 (40)
Lecture 15
Nepal Case
Study
(Kai Weise)

10:00-13:00(180)Team Project
Formulating
DRM Plan forCase Study Sites

10:00-13:00(180)Open JuryFree

9:00-12:00
ICOMOSICORP Meeting(Session 2 )Tea Break

11:30-12:10(40)Lecture 17
Taiwan Case
Study
(Shang-Chia
Chiou)

11:40-13:00 (80)Lecture 13
Training of
Heritage
Manager(MURAKAMI,
Hyogo Pref.)10:45-11:25 (40)
Lecture 16
Korean Case
Study
(CHOI
Byung-Ha)

Presentationof a DRM Planfor Each Siteby the Training
Participants
Critique andComments fromthe Resource
Persons

Tea Break7

12:20-13:00(40)Lecture 18
Blue Shield(Sue COLE)

11:30-13:00
Move to
Sasayama

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

14:00-17:00(180)

14:30-16:20(110)
Workshop 1
Risk Analysis
Exercise for
Kiyomizu-Dera
Temple(JIGYASU…)

14:00-15:30 (90)Workshop 2-1
Field work at
Sannei-zaka
ImportantPreservation
District(OKUBO…)

14:00-15:20 (80)Lecture 7
Introduction to
the Integrated
Methodology
for Assessing
Risks(JIGYASU)

14:00-15:20 (80)Lecture 8
Disaster
Mitigation Planof Cultural
Heritage inKyoto City
(ISHIZAKI,
Kyoto City FD)

14:00-18:00(240)
Team Project
Formulating
DRM Plan forCase Study
Sites

Free

14:00-16:00(120)Site Visit 5
History ofArchitecture andConservationin Sasayama
ImportantPreservation
District(SAIMOTO,NARITA,
Sasayama City)

14:00-15:20 (80)Lecture 14
Disaster Risk
Preparedness
and Integrated
Protection ofCultural Heritagein Japan(UMEZU, ACA
Japan)

14:00-18:00(240)
Team Project
Formulating
DRM Plan forCase Study
Sites

14:00-18:00(240)
Team Project
Formulating
DRM Plan forCase Study Sites

14:00-17:00(180)
Team ProjectPreparation for
Panel
Presentation

14:00-17:00(180)
ICOMOS-ICORP
Meeting(Session 1)

13:00-17:30

Presentations
by the Training
Participants
15min*12

Tea BreakAccommodation

RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATION

9/18 (Sat)to DMUCH

Tea Break4th

9/17 (Fri)9:30-10:00 (30)
Registration
10:00-11:20 (80)

12:30-13:30
Move to DMUCH

3rd

9/16 (Thu)to DMUCH

Tea break2nd

9/15 (Wed)

17:20-18:00(40)Special Report
Recovery
Process of
Damaged
Cultural
Heritage:
Experienceof the Pisco
Earthquake(TERESA)
19:00-20:30 (90)
Welcome Dinner
Kyoto

16:40-18:00 (80)Lecture 3
Disaster Risk
Managementof Cultural
Heritage Significance andCore Principles(JIGYASU)

Restaurant
Kyoto

15:30-16:30
Move to
DMUCH
16:30-18:00 (90)Workshop 2-2
Risk
Assessment
Exercise: DIG
in Sannei-zaka
ImportantPreservation
District(OKUBO…)

Restaurant
Kyoto

Tea BreakTea BreakTea Break

15:40-18:00(140)
Workshop 3
Building a
Disaster Risk
Scenario andAssessing Risk
Levels(JIGYASU…)

15:40-18:00(140)
Workshop 4
Role Playing
Exercise for
Emergency
Response Procedures(JIGYASU…)

16:00-18:00(120)
Workshop 5
Emergency
Response andRecovery Planfor Sasayama(MURAKAMI,
Hyogo Pref. …)

140th
Anniversary of
The Ritsumeikan
Academy,110th
Anniversary of
Ritsumeikan
University
International
Symposium”How to Protect
Cultural Heritage
from Disasters:
Risk
Preparedness
and Post
Disaster
Recovery”

16:00-19:00
move to Kyoto

17:00-18:00(60)Team Project
Final Review ofPanels(JIGYASU…)
Restaurant
Kyoto

Restaurant
Kyoto

Restaurant
Kyoto

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

18:00-20:00
Farewell Party

Kyoto

Sasayama-Old
House

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Proceedingsof theICOMOS– for
ICORP
Meeting
to 27
September
2010,
Kyoto,Japan
Organized
by ResearchCenterDisasterScientific
Risk Mitigationof Urban 24
Cultural
Heritage,
Ritsumeikan
University,
Kyoto,Japan
In Cooperation with UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICCROM, ICOMOS

UNESCO Chair on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON DISASTER RISKMANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE 2010
Name of Participants
Name

8Name of Lecturers and Resource Persons
PictureCurrent Position, Organization/Institution
and E-mail address

Selected Site

Country

Wangduephodrang
Dzong

Bhutan1

Dechen Tshering

Structural Engineer,
Division for Conservation of Heritage
Sites, Department of Culture, Ministryof Home & Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan
dechentshering@yahoo.com

2

Junko Mukai

Deputy Chief Conservation Architect,
Division for Conservation of Heritage
Sites, Department of Culture, Ministryof Home and Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan
junpee0212@yahoo.co.jp

3

Alexander G DwightDirector, Historical Preservation Officer
Bureau of Arts & Culture, Ministry ofCommunity & Cultural Affairsdelbochel@gmail.com

4

Sunny Ngirmang

Palau National Registrar,
Bureau of Arts & Culture, Palau HistoricPreservation Officebac_reg@palaunet.com

5

Teresa Vilcapoma
Huapaya

University Professor,
Sagrado Corazon University
terevilh@yahoo.es

6Olga Keiko
Mendoza Shimada

Doctor Course Student,
JSPS Research Fellow,
Ritsumeikan University, Graduate Schoolof Science & Engineeringolgakeiko@gmail.com

7

Marilene Terrones
Diaz

University Professor,
Sagrado Corazon University
marileneterrones@gmail.com

The City of Cusco

8

Milica Grozdanic

Director
Cultural Heritage Preservation Instituteof Belgrademilica.grozdanic@beogradskonasledje.rs

Republic of
Serbia9

Svetlana
Dimitrijevic Markovic

Architect – conservator - Senior
Associate
Cultural Heritage Preservation Instituteof Belgrade
svetlana.d.markovic@beogradskonasledje.rs

Belgrade’s samplesof Oriental-Balkanarchitecture(Princess Ljubica
Residence, Prince
Milos Residence,
Tavern “?”,Dositej’s Lyceum etc.)

10

Zeynep Gul Unal

Assistant Professor, Dr.
Yildiz Technical University, Faculty ofArchitecture,
Restoration Department
zgulunal@gmail.com

Kütahya district

Republic of
Turkey11

Meltem Vatan Kaptan

Research Assistant, PhD Student,
Yildiz Technical University, Faculty ofArchitecture,
Structural Systems Division
meltemvatan@gmail.com

Airai Bai, Ngkeklau
Bai, Melkeok andKoror Bai

Historical Centre of
the City of Arequipa

Palau

Peru

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Name

Country

PictureWork Position and Affiliation
E-mail address

1

Kenzo TOKIJapan

Director, Professor,
Research Center for Disaster Mitigationof Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University

Lecture 2
International
Symposium2

Kanefusa MASUDA

Japan

Professor, General Secretary of ICORP
Research Center for Disaster Mitigationof Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University
km@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

Lecture 1
Team Project,Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting International
Symposium

3

Rohit JIGYASU

India

Professor, President of ICORP,
Research Center for Disaster Mitigationof Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University
Conservation Architect and DisasterMgmt. Consultant
rohit.jigyasu@gmail.com

Lecture 3,7,11
Workshop 1,3,4
Team Project,Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting International
Symposium

4

Takeyuki OKUBOJapan

Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
okubo-t@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

Lecture 4,9Site Visit 2
Workshop 2Team Project ,Open Jury

5

Kazuyuki IZUNOJapan

Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
izuno@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

Lecture 5

6

Aiko FURUKAWA

Japan

Assistant Professor,
Kyoto University, Dept. of Civil and Earth
Resources Engineering
furukawa.aiko.3w@kyoto-u.ac.jp

Lecture 6

7

Satoru ISHIZAKI

Japan

Director ofDisaster Prevention and Crisis Management Office,Kyoto City Fire Department

Lecture 8

8

Yumi AKIEDA

Japan

Research Fellow MSc. (Architectural
Conservation)
Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, Tokyoy.akieda@tobunken.go.jp

Lecture 10
Team Project, OpenJury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

9

Yasumichi MURAKAMI Japan

Director of Cultural Asset Division,
Hyogo Prefecture Board of Education
yasumichi_murakami@pref.hyogo.jp

Lecture 12,13
Workshop 5

10

Akiko UMEZU

Japan

Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties,
Cultural Properties Department Agency for
Cultural Affairs of Japan
kmk@bunka.go.jp

Lecture 14
Workshop 5

11

Kai WEISE

Nepal

Architect,
Planners’ Alliance for the Himalayan &Allied Regions (PAHAR Nepal)
pahar@mail.com.np

Lecture 15
Team Project,Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

9

Name of Lecturers and Resource Persons

10

PictureName of Lecturers and Resource Persons

Name

CountryWork Position and Affiliation
E-mail address

12

Byungha CHOI

Republic of
Korea

Appointed expert of Historic sites from
CHA of Korea(Rep. of)choikhmer@hotmail.com

Lecture 16
Team Project,Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

13

Shang-Chia CHIOU

TaiwanVice President
National Yunlin University of Scienceand Technology
chiousc@yuntech.edu.tw

14

Sue COLE

United Kingdom

15

Mr. SHIRAISHI

16

Name

Country

23

Daijiro KITAGAWA

Japan

Project Manager,
ICCROM

Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Lecture 17
Team Project,Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting International
Symposium

24

Robyn RIDDETT

Australia

Director
Anthemion Consultancies
Melbourne, ICORP Member
rgrd@bigpond.com

Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Senior International Advisor
National Advice teamEnglish Heritage, London UK
Sue.Cole@english-heritage.org.uk

Lecture 18
Team Project, OpenJury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting International
Symposium

25

Victoria GILL

Philippines

Consultant, Endangered Heritage,
Manila,ICORP Member
victoria.gill@endangeredheritage.com

ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Japan

Technical Specialist for Cultural Property,
Cultural Property Division, Kyoto Prefecture Education Agency

Site Visit 1

26

Minna Perähuhta

Finland

Senior Architect
Ministry of the Environment,
minna.perahuhta@ymparisto.fi

ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Hikokazu OMORI

Japan

Executive Director, Omori Architectural
Office,Chief Technical Expert of Cultural
Property Building
Repair/Restoration, Expert of FireFighting Equipment

Site Visit 3

17

Masatoshi NARITA

Japan

Cultural Asset Protection Office,
Board of Education,
Sasayama City

Site Visit 5

18

Kenji SAIMOTO

Japan

Hyogo Heritage Organization

Site Visit 5

19

Hideki SUNAHARA

Japan

General Director,
Kyo-o-gokoku-ji Temple

International
Symposium

20

Moe CHIBAJapan

Programme Specialist for Culture,
UNESCO New Delhi

Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting
International
Symposium

21

Gustavo ARAOZ

USA

President of ICOMOS

Open Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting International
Symposium

22

Akatsuki TAKAHASHI

Japan

Programme Specialist for Culture,
UNESCO Office for the Pacific StatesOpen Jury
ICORP Scientific
Meeting

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

PictureWork Position and Affiliation
E-mail address

11

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

TEAM PROJECTSTEAM PROJECTSSECTION 2
Team Projects of International
Training Course
Disaster Risk Management Plan for
Cultural Heritage Sites
2.1 BHUTAN
DISASTER RISKMITIGATION PLAN FOR
WANGDUEPHODRANG
DZONGJunko Mukai and Dechen Tshering

12

The objective of the project is
to incorporate the Disaster Risk
Management Plan into the ongoing Conservation Project of
the Wangduephodrang Dzong.
Additionally, the Disaster Risk
Management Plan for the cultural
heritage site needs to be incorporated
into the District Disaster Risk
Management Plan. The target
audience of the project will be themonks. The responsible agencies
will be the Monk Body, the District
Administration and the Department
of Disaster Management and theDepartment of Culture under the
Ministry of Home & Cultural
Affairs.
The Wangduephodrang Dzong
Conservation Project with a total
budget of Nu. 200 million and a
project period from 2008 to 2013
are being implemented with theexecuting agency being the Ministryof Home & Cultural Affairs andthe Division for Conservationof Heritage Sites acting as theimplementing agency.
Assessing the heritage site, thefollowing hazards were identified;
fires magnified by wind, earthquakes,
flood that lead to erosion andlandslides and the impact of heavytransportation. The vulnerabilities ofthe Wangduephodrang Dzong wereidentified as the following; wooden
construction, structural deterioration,water leakage, electrical wiring,
narrow passages, steep steps, oillamps and crowded spaces.
The disaster scenario that waschosen was a fire that breaks out
in the centrally located monastic
zone on the first floor, the wooden
structure catches on fire and the windcauses it to spread quickly. There is
only one exit which leads throughthe courtyard of the administrativezone. The fifty monks that residein this area must descend from anarrow staircase.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanThe mechanism for disastermanagement is coordinated by a
National Steering Committee chairedby the Minister for Home andCultural Affairs with the secretaries
of all ministries being members.
The Department of Disaster
Management takes on the central
role by coordinating between the
district authorities, the Technical
Working Group and the Resource
Mobilization Working Group.
At the district level, the District
Committee on Disaster Management
is chaired by the Governor. Funds
are provided through the Gross
National Happiness Commission andthe Finance Ministry. His Majesty’s
Relief Fund supports relevant
agencies and individuals directly.
Various improvements were
proposed for emergency
preparedness. On the ground floor,
the creation of a second exit was
proposed. The kitchen was to be
relocated outside the Dzong. Offices
were to be relocated and alternative
paths created. On the first floor thefire extinguishers were to be placed
in appropriate locations and theexisting fire-fighting equipment
was to be reviewed. Appropriate
locations for wet areas were to becreated and sanitary piping was tobe checked. On the second floor(upper courtyard level) the creationof a new exit in Zone A and theutilization of the basement space as a
refuge area were proposed. Measures
were to be found to stop the spreadof fire from Zone B. On the third

floor measures were required to stop
the fire from spreading along theattic space.
Short and long term recovery plans
were proposed. The responsibilities
are distributed between the various
authorities. The District Committee
on Disaster Management includes
the Disaster Focal Person, Monk
Body, Cultural Officer and theEngineering Division. Their work
is coordinated with the Department
of Disaster Management and theDepartment of Culture which
includes the Division of Cultural
Properties and the Division forConservation of Heritage Sites.
The proposed pilot project consistsof various specific actions. The
possibility of strengthening trained
manpower needs to be studied,especially in respect to disastermanagement of heritage sites andthe structural analysis of heritage
structures. Proper legislation needs
to be formulated for the protectionof cultural heritage. Additionally,
the suitability of the fire fighting
equipment must be studied,depending on the required typology.
These activities would be carriedout through discussions between
the Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites and the Division for
Cultural Properties and meetings
with the Department of Disaster
Management, the Central Monk
Body and the WangduephodrangMonk Body.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

13

TEAM PROJECTSTEAM PROJECTS

2.2 Palau

the identity of the place. It
would also have an impact on
the economy of the area.

BAI – TRADITIONAL MEETING
HOUSES
Sunny Ngirmang and DwightAlexander
The site of the Irrai Traditional
Village is spread around the Irrai
Bai, which is associated with theevents that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patternsof Palauan history; associated withlyrics, folklores, and traditions
significant in Palauan culture,
the site embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period,or method of construction, or the
representation of the work, of amaster.

14

In the traditional management
system, the Bai caretaker was
assigned by the Chiefs. The
Traditional Men’s Club was assigned
the regular maintenance. The
Department of Heritage Propertiesof the Airai State Government is
the responsible authority under theState Historic Policy. At the national
government level
the Palau HistoricPreservation
Office is
responsible underthe Historicaland Cultural
Preservation Act.
The Irrai Bai
was built before
the 1700s. The
structure has

been moved about 200 metersfrom its original location after it
was damaged during the Second
World War and was renovated in
1984, 1992 and 2009. The Irrai Bai
was listed on the Palau Registerof Historic Places in 1989. Thereis no system to warn the nearby
community in the event of a fire.
There are only two access roads
made of basalt stones with amaximum width of 1.5 metres,
and requires the Hospital andFire Department 25 minutes to
respond. The electrical system has
been installed by lay community
members. The structure is infested
by insects and rats, with the threat ofchewed electrical wires igniting fires.
The threat of vandalism
and negligence toproperty is high andmonitoring is minimal.
The possibility hazardsof fire, arson andneglect exists. The
destruction of thearchaeological site andnearby Bai would leadto the loss of traditional
knowledge, oral history
on the Bai including

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanThe disaster scenario which
was created begins with a firecaused by the sparks fromwires that have been chewed
on by rodents. Nearby residents
inform the community coordinator
who informs the fire department,
the hospital and the State office.
The residents assist injured tourists
and start fighting the fire. The
coordinator arrives with the youth

club. Thirty minutes later the fire
truck and the ambulance arrive andthe fire is in full blaze. The medical
team is able to rescue the injured
tourists, but the heritage structure islost to the blaze. The reason for theloss of the heritage property is dueto the distance of the fire hydrant,

the difficult access and the delayed
response of the fire truck.
Certain measures were proposed
for mitigation and emergency
preparedness. A water reservoir
needed to be constructed nearby thatis accessible to the community anda second access road is required.
On site residents need to be given
the responsibility to monitor theproperty and a designate staff
within State Heritage Protection
office is needed to liaison.
Effective networking between thestate government, the National
Emergency Management Office, thePalau Historic Preservation Officeand other stakeholders is required.
An emergency phone must be
installed. The national policy needs
to include disaster risk management,along with public education andawareness. The responsible staffs
need to have appropriate training.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

15

TEAM PROJECTSTEAM PROJECTS

2.3 Peru
DISASTER MITIGATION FOR
THE CITY OF CUSCO
Teresa Vilcapoma, Marilene
Terrones and Keiko Mendoza

16

The City of Cusco was inscribedon the World Heritage List in 1983
under criteria (iii) and (iv). The
Spanish buildings were built over
the ruins of the Inca city. Cusco is aunique testimony of the Inca culture
and the urban landscape illustrates
the mixed cultures of the Incas andthe Spanish.
The management system includes
the three main stakeholders: theMunicipality of Cusco, the National
Institute ofCulture andthe National
Instituteof Civil
Defence. The
Municipality,
as the local
governmentof the city is
responsible for urban development
and is also the local authority incase of a disaster. The National
Institute of Culture maintains
declared monuments, monitors theinventory, carries out restoration
projects including training of
required personnel and carries
out interventions in case of an
emergency. The National Instituteof Civil Defence is responsible forrisk management and therefore
stores emergency equipment, checks
fire fighting equipment, carries
out earthquake drills and trains
personnel for risk management.
However there are no protocols
which clarify the responsibilities ofthese authorities in case of a disaster.

Cusco has a long history ofearthquakes, landslides and floods.
It must be noted that the Inca walls
were not damaged, but the colonial
and republican buildings werecompletely destroyed. Regional
and local hazard maps have been
prepared indicating extremely
high, high, medium and low hazard
areas. There are over eight hundred

thousand tourists that visit the city
every year. The streets are narrow
with many slopes, steps and slippery
pavements. Many old buildings arein a bad condition. The vulnerable
monuments that have been identified
are: the Inca Wall Street Saphy,
the main square, the University
Rector Building located in Tigre
street, the Saint Teresa Church,
the South Portal Plaza de Armas(Main square), the Auditorium
Saint Antonio Abad University, theSociety of Jesus Church, the Palaceof Justice, the Site Museum andSaint Domingo square, and the Inca
walls in Choquechaca.
The disaster scenario that was
created was an earthquake ofProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanmagnitude 8 which
has a severe impact
on the physical fabricof the city withthe loss of life andcultural properties.
The earthquake
would also set off
landslides leading tofurther damage.
The objective of
the Disaster Risk
Management
Plan would be tocontribute to reducing the effectsof the disaster. It would require
the estimation of the level of risk
through the identification of danger
and the analysis of vulnerabilities.
It would entail the establishment
and implementation of specificprevention measures and actions
related to preparedness andeducation of the people. It would
allow for the declaration of a state of
emergency in the case of a disaster.
Mitigation and preventative actions
would need to be carried out. The
mitigation measures would include
appropriate government policies,
land use, building guidelines,
evacuation plans, drills, maintenanceand monitoring procedures andtechnical measures for strengtheningof monuments. The Emergency
Team would comprise of the threemain stakeholders (the Municipalityof Cusco, the National Institute ofCulture and the National Instituteof Civil Defence) as well as the firebrigade, police force, the communityand volunteers.
In the Emergency
Preparedness andResponse Plan theevacuation routes
and safe areas wereidentified. The
rescue routes wereidentified alongwith the locationsof fire hydrants.
The Recovery Plan
provided immediate,short-term andlong-term actions
with indications of the responsible
institutions, and required human,
technical and financial resources.
The proposed Pilot Project focusedaround the San Francisco de Asis
square, the historical centre of Cusco
located 300 meters south west of
the city’s main square. The Pilot

Project proposed the establishment
a recovery plan with immediate
actions (within a month), short term
actions (within 6 months) and longterm actions (within 3 years). The
responsible institutions and required
human, technical and financial
resources have been identified.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

17

TEAM PROJECTSTEAM PROJECTS

2.4 Republic of Serbia
OUTLINE OF DISASTERRISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR KOSANCICEV VENAC,
BELGRADE, SERBIA
Milica Grozdanic and Svetlana
Dimitrijevic Markovic

18

Kosancicev Venac is a place ofscenic beauty and a significant partof the townscape of Belgrade. This
area is a testimony to the historicdevelopment of Belgrade from thefirst half of the eighteenth century,
when the late-mediaeval settlement
was reconstructed, to the present day.
This is the oldest compact Serbian
settlement in Belgrade where theold raster of spontaneously createdstreets has been preserved alongwith a number of historic buildings,
public places and the necropolises of
the Roman Singidunum.
The site consists of residentialbuildings including the embassies,
a university of art, an elementary
school, a church and patriarchate, amuseum and taverns. There are two
cultural assets of special importance,eight cultural assets, sixty four
historic buildings and undergroundchambers of archaeological value.
The buildings consist of timberframe or masonry structures.
The existing national, regional andcity level institution for disastermanagement don’t include cultural
heritage expertise. Existingplanning and building legislation
is not harmonized with values ofcultural heritage. Interim technicalregulations for construction inseismic areas were adopted in
1964. The existing plans andprojects do not reflect the actual
implementation. There is no clear
division of responsibilities in respect
to implementation. There are nofunds for conservation, rehabilitationand protection of cultural heritage.
Traditional knowledge andsustainable practices that ensured acertain level of protection of cultural
heritage from the worst effects ofnatural hazards or human-madedisasters are being progressively
abandoned. Public buildings at
the cultural heritage site are fitted
out with security, warning andemergency equipment, which is not
the case for residential buildings.
The community is not instructed,
educated and organized in thecase of disasters and there is nocooperation with the public offices.
Past events show that the possible
hazards would be earthquakes,
landslides, rising round waterand fire. The vulnerability ofthe site would be the weak soil,
narrow winding streets, cobbled
pavement and lack of preparedness
and knowledge on responding todisasters.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanThe disaster scenario that was
created was a 5.6-magnitude
earthquake which activated alandslide as a result of which theunderground chambers of thearchaeological value collapsed.
This caused further landslides andthe collapsing of structures whichblocked the main roads. There ispanic, various fires and the threatof theft to the musuem collection.
The impact of such a disaster would
be fatalities and injury to people,
collapsing of historic buildings andthe disruption of services.
The Disaster Management Plan
provides clear, flexible and practicalguidance to reduce the risk fromhazards such as earthquakes, fires
and landslides. This
plan is assigned to
the City Assembly of
Belgrade in cooperation
with the Ministry of
Culture, the Ministryof Interior Affairs, theDisaster Management
Agency, the Heritage
Preservation Instituteof Belgrade, local
maintenance offices, the police,
the health services, the emergency
response teams and the residents ofKosancicev venac. Additionally thepriest, museum staff and embassies
staff would need to be involved.
The mitigation measures consistof the strategic level (funding,
education and networking), thephysical planning level (building
guidelines and water sources)
and the technical level (slope
stabilization and fire-fighting
equipment). A maintenanceand monitoring system is tobe established which includes
routine patrols of the of theKosancicev venac area by the
Heritage Preservation Instituteof Belgrade and the training ofstaff and volunteers to evacuate
visitors, colleagues and collections.
For emergency preparedness andresponse, an evacuation plan
including safe areas and shelters areplanned together with an emergency
response team.
A recovery plan with short-termand long-term recovery activities
were identified including the related
stakeholders. Under the short-term
activities were damage assessmentof moveable and immovable cultural
heritage and protection measures
for movable cultural heritageand damaged historic buildings.
The long-term recovery activities
included setting up the financial
system, reviewing
policy and the Disaster
Risk Management Plan,
improving infrastructure,reviewing documentation
data and implementing
conservation andrestoration work on
cultural monuments.
The proposed pilot
project was to prepare a Disaster
Risk Management Plan for Sopocani
Monastery, World heritage Site. On
the outskirts of Stari
Ras, the first capitalof Serbia, there is animpressive group of
medieval monuments
consisting offortresses, churches
and monasteries.
The monasteryat Sopoćani is a reminder ofthe contacts between Western
civilization and the Byzantine world.
Disaster Risk Management Plan for
Sopocani Monastry should identify
and assess the main disaster risks to
the heritage values and the human
lives within the site.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

19

TEAM PROJECTSTEAM PROJECTS

2.5 Republic of Turkey

unsafe. The vulnerability also arises
from the construction materials:
Wood and mud brick.
The disaster scenario that was
created was an earthquake which
led to rock fall and fires. Buildings
collapsed, people are injured andthere are fatalities. The electricity,communication and water supply is
cut off. The roads are blocked. Thereis panic and chaos.

DISASTER RISKMANAGEMENT AND
RECOVERY PLAN
FOR ESKIGEDIZ HERITAGE
SITE
Zeynep Gül ÜNAL and Meltem
VATAN

20

The town of Eskigediz is locatedin the Kütahya Province. The
significance of the site is basedon three main characteristics.
It is an urban heritage site witha traditional urban structure(street pattern, walls, fountains,etc.), monumental buildings andvernacular architecture. There is anarcheological site with archeologicalsurface remains and an aqueduct.
The site is also surrounded bynatural heritage with endemic
flora, agricultural and spring water
sources. The zoning plan indicatesthe boundary of the urban site, thenatural site and the archaeologicalsites. Various monuments, buildings,
ruins and public squares areregistered. Further inventories ofbuildings were prepared in 2003 and2005.

Various laws define the link between
the heritage site management anddisaster management: Cultural
and Natural Values Conservation
Law (Law 2863 -1983), Law ofMandatory Earthquake Insurance(Law 587-1999) and Property Tax
Royalty (10%) for Heritage Building
Restorations. The executive powers
are held by the Ministry of Culture,
The Disaster and Emergency
Management Agency, the Governor,
the Municipality and the Vak’f.
The latest disaster that occurred wasan earthquake in 1970. Buildings
collapsed, with fires adding to thedestruction, injuries and fatalities.
The following interventions werecarried out: repair, restoration,
reconstruction and relocation of thesettlement. The potential hazard
map indicates areas vulnerable
to earthquakes, with high risk
areas for fires, floods and rockfall. The vulnerabilities are basedon lack of maintenance, poverty,lack of awareness about disasters,
insufficient fire fighting system andequipment. This is magnified by thefact that the site is located near an
active fault, close to rocky hills withlimited access to the village. The
streets are narrow and there are deadends. The construction is of poor
quality and the heating system is

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanThe mitigation and emergency
preparedness is based on threelevels: policy, emergency response
and technical. On the policy level theGovernor is the commander of theemergency situation. The Heritage
Damage Assessment Task Force isestablished under the Ministry of
Culture. Public awareness, educationand field exercises are carried out.
At the emergency response levelan evacuation plan is developed.
Various locations are determined for
shelters, refuges, a field hospital,
emergency communication system,
secure area for salvaged cultural
heritage objects and an Emergency
Site Operation Center. Various teams
are set up: local search and rescue,fire fighting and heritage damage
assessment. On the technical level
there are pre-disaster activities(condition survey, areal fire fighting
system, river water pumping system,
building based fire-fighting system,
power cut and check valve systemand prevention of rock fall)
and post-disaster activities(security of rescued culturalobjects, damage assessment,
diagnosis, intervention,
manual for building repairs
and monitoring).

the risk levels before the disaster andthe damaged state and usability after
the disaster. The first step would be
to gather qualitative data throughvisual inspection. The second stepwould involve quantitative data
through laboratory tests and numericanalysis. The damage assessment
would be categorized under safe
for use (none-slight), unsafe for use(moderate – heavy) and dangerous
for use (severe – total).
The recovery plan proposed thefollowing short term activities:
Revising of the preservation plan,
cost estimation for repairing andrestoring the disaster damages anddevelopment of the rehabilitation
plan. The long-term activities
would include rehabilitation plan inaction, establishing disaster research
institute, using natural site for health
tourism and using endemic flora as
an economic sources.
The proposed pilot project entailed
the development of the system forbuilding assessment after a disaster.
This would require the Heritage
Damage Assessment Task Forceto gather data from the field. The
damage would be considered,through processing the data,
analyzing and coming to a decision
for a new preservation plan for thehistoric buildings and site.

The building inspections
would be needed to consider
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan21

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETINGSECTION 3
Report on the ICOMOS / ICORP
Scientific Meeting on Sustainable
Protection and Recovery of
Cultural Heritage in Post Disaster
Situation
Saturday, 25th September 2010: 14:00-17:00
Sunday, 26th September 2010: 9:00-12:00
Organized by ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Risk
Preparedness (ICORP)
in cooperation with Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (Rits-DMUCH), Kyoto

Proceedings of the ICORP
Scientific Meeting22

Our experiences from recent
disasters such as Haiti have clearlyshown that cultural heritage needs
are not adequately addressed during
post disaster response and recovery
phase. In fact, significant cultural
heritage is lost not only due tothe main hazard event that causes
disaster but also during response andrecovery phase as a result of lack ofappropriate policies and procedures,
coordination and awareness among
various stakeholders. There isclearly a need to recognize andaddress this issue and develop
standard operating proceduresfor carrying out various activities
such as documentation, damage
assessment, emergency protection
and repair and interventions aimed
at reducing future disaster risks.
This requires effective teamwork

among cultural heritage institutions
and professionals at local, national
as well as international levels andalso coordination with civic defence
agencies and those responsible forrelief and rehabilitation. Moreoverthese activities and proceduresshould be tailored to the nature ofheritage and local socio-cultural,
economic and institutional context.
The scientific meeting aims todiscuss these issues in the light ofexperiences gathered from various
parts of the world. Based on the
deliberations of this meeting, wehope to come up with ICORP
recommendations that could
lead towards developing specificguidelines, pilot projects and further
scientific activities in this area.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.1 Issues and Challenges ofWorld Heritage Properties
Giovanni Boccardi
UNESCO / World Heritage Centre– Asia Pacific(through Video Conference)
There is no mechanism to address
disaster related risks for World
Heritage, though this is a risingconcern. The terminology ofin use is not yet clear; Disaster
Risk Reduction, Disaster Risk
Management, Risk Preparedness etc.
Furthermore, all the stages before,
during and after the disaster must be
considered. Disaster related risks andother risks that affect the property ina slow and gradual process requiredifferent approaches.
The perspective of UNESCO isslightly different from that of
ICOMOS. UNESCO follows the
mandate of the United Nations
linked to ensuring peace andsecurity, which is closely linked tosustainable development. This meansthat not only the physical affect isconsidered, but the social, economic
and the environmental impact needs
to be addressed through the heritage
sector; as part of development.
For example if a museum is shutfor two years, this would affectthe rehabilitation process and theincome. The same could be said withfacilities such as community centres,
etc.

The establishment of Post Disaster
Impact Assessment is being fundedby the United Nations, World Bankand the European Commission.
Culture and heritage is included with
the involvement of UNESCO. Thisis closely linked to the activities
of ICORP. The Post Disaster
Impact Assessment is carried out
a couple of months after a disasterhas taken place. The tangible andrelated impacts on the sustainable
development of the community
are assessed. This is linked to theredevelopment sectors and a systemof complete guidance which includes
heritage. Mechanisms of funding
are provided through UN FlashAppeals. Some cultural projects havebeen included for Pakistan after the
recent floods. This is often linked
to communities that ask for work
opportunities.
Resource manuals have beendeveloped which are available
on the website. “Managing
Disaster Risk for World Heritage”
includes identifying, assessing andplanning mitigation measures. It
also considers the positive role ofheritage in reducing disaster risks.
A roster for Disaster Reduction
experts is being prepared withICORP being one of the key
partners. It is also important tobuild capacity within the countries.
This is being done through theInternational Training Courses being
provided by Ritsumeikan University.
There should be funds available fortraining activities of the national
authorities.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

23

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.2 CHALLENGES TO
PROTECT HERITAGESITES IN BHUTAN- in the Post Earthquake Situation– 21 Sep 2009 Earthquake M6.1
Affected the Eastern Regions
Junko Mukai, Dy. Chief
Conservation Architect
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department ofCulture,Ministry of Home & Cultural
Affairs,
Royal Government of Bhutan

24

Bhutan lies in the highly earthquake
prone eastern Himalayan region. On
21 September 2009 an earthquakeof intensity M6.1 struck the easternregion of the country casing damage
to Lakhangs (temples), Dzongs(fortresses), houses and governmentbuildings.

The response of the government wasquick. Under the Ministry of Homeand Cultural Affairs, the District
Administration sent their engineers
and cultural officers to assess thedamage. The effected buildings
were placed under four categories:
Beyond Repair, Major Repair,
Partial Repair and Minor Repair. It
was however not always clear, whatcriteria were to be used to segregate
the four categories.
The National Steering Committee,
which is chaired by the Minister of
MoHCA and includes thesecretaries of all ministries,
has two Working Groups;
resource mobilization andfor technical works. The
Technical Working Groupand specifically the Division
for Conservation of Heritage
Sites of the Department ofCulture were requested tocome up with solutions on
how to restore the damaged
structures.
The earthquake had affected somebuildings while others were notaffected at all. Referring to old

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

Solutions were required for
improving the stability of thebuildings. However there was a lackof technical knowledge and expertiseand therefore the policy makers
could not take appropriate decisions.
photographs it was clear that thecracks found in some buildings
existed even before the earthquake.
However the people seemed to havelost confidence in the traditional
structures and slept outside.
The question arose
whether the solution
would be to demolishand reconstruct. The
local governments
preferred immediate
emergency measures
to be taken. However it
was necessary for thecentral government toquickly standardize
the response forvernacular buildings
by setting guidelines.
Compensation wasprovided based on the
categorization of theaffected buildings.

The response to the buildings thatwere beyond repair and requiring
minor repair was clear. The
challenge was how to deal withthe buildings that required major
and partial repair. The traditional
response to the earthquake wasto carry out rituals to
subdue the deity of theground.
The major question was
how to evaluate the stone
masonry. It has not beenpossible to continue
without this knowledge.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

25

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.3 The little things that countand The reconstruction after
the 1934 earthquake;
Examples from Nepal
Kai Weise
Planners’ Alliance for the Himalayan
and Allied Regions (PAHAR Nepal)
Five examples of disasters in
the World Heritage
properties of Nepal andthe lessons learnt.

26

1. Fire gutted thePrattapur Temple(Swayambhu
Monument Zone,
Kathmandu Valley
World Heritage
property) in August
2003. The fire probably
began due to the oillamps that are burnt
at the opening to the
sanctum. The fire wasfurther fuelled by
the pigeon droppings
which then led tothe internal wooden
framing to catch fire.
The accessibility to thetemple was hindered,since the tantric temple
can only be opened
once a year and only
for the priest. The firebrigade had difficulties
reaching the location
which is on top ofa hill with no roadaccess. Ultimately
they managed to pumpwater from a pond. A
hole was opened at theICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

top of the Shikara structure and cold
water was pumped in. This led to
rapid cooling and the washing awayof the mud mortar. The structure
collapsed two weeks later. The
reconstruction work was simplified
by the fact that a second temple ofthe same design is located to thesouth.
2. In March 2009a fire gutted the
Banglamukhi Temple(Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone,
Kathmandu Valley
World Heritage
property). The firebegan after theelectricity connection
was restored at
midnight and a shortcircuit of the electricalcables released sparks.
The artificial enamel
paint on the woodworkcaught fire. Most of theinterior was destroyed
and the intricately
carved wooden
member were charred.
3. In January 2006 theTansen Durbar, theDistrict Headquarters,
was attacked by the
Maoist. After taking
a number of persons
hostage, they set fire to
the historical buildings,
which were completely
destroyed. The
destruction of these
historical buildings

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanwas unnecessary
and the Maoist
leaders regretted theaction. This led tothe preparation of areport linking it to theimportance of Nepal
ratifying The Hague
Convention and theProtocols.
4. Lumbini, thebirthplace of Lord
Buddha, wasabandoned between
the 15 to 19 century
possibly due to flooding
and changes to theclimate. Flooding is
still a major threat
to the property andthe archaeologicalvestiges; an issue
which was animportant basis for
Kenzo Tange’s Master
Plan. The constructionof a 2.2 meter highembankment wasplanned just across theborder in India at anelevation of between
90 to 91 meters. This
would have been amajor threat to Lumbini
which is located at an altitude of
93.5 meters.
5. There are various locations
within the Kathmandu Valley World
Heritage property which are affectedby erosion. In Changu Narayan
the erosion could be linked to thereforestation using an alien species

pinus roxburghii whichin the long run has
been detrimental to thesoil. In Pashupati theconstruction of a roadthrough the ancientforest has threatened
the surrounding
environment andheritage structures
The Kathmandu
Valley was severally
impacted by the
1934 Great BiharNepal Earthquake.
Even though theepicentre was some
350 kilometres to thesoutheast, intensities
of IX and X wereexperienced within
the valley due to thesoil consistency andliquefaction. A bookwas compiled by
Major General Brahma
Shumsher Rana on thereconstruction effort
which has recently
been translated with thesupport of Ritsumeikan
University. The
document shows howeven in those days
the response to the disaster wascoordinated. Importance was given
to monuments and temples, thelessons learnt were documented,
and an international collaboration in
sharing of knowledge and resources
existed. This was especially the casebetween Nepal and Japan.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

27

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.4 Philippines
The Ring of Fire quenched by
StormsVictoria Gill
The following World Heritage
properties are located in thePhilippines: the Rice Terraces of theCordilleras, the Baroque Churchesof the Philippines, Historic Town of

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

and has a population of 82 million.
26 million people live in Manila.
In 1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted
and displaced 30,000 people, killing
9000. This was followed by Typhoon
Yunya. The Mayon Volcano erupted
in 2006. The Taal Volcano, Tagaytay,
considered the smallest volcano in
the world has a grade 2 warning.
parts of Visayas. The active fault
lines show that the Philippines sitson a small plate which is affectedby any seismic activity in theregion; the “Ring of Fire”. Fault

28

Vigan, Puerto-Princesa SubterraneanRiver National Park and the
Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. The
Philippines consists of 7107 islands

On 16 July 1990, a magnitude
7.8 earthquake shook almost theentire island of Luzon and some

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanlines run through Manila. It has
been predicted that a Haiti-styleearthquake would cause 10% ofhigh rise failure and 30% loss of
hospitals. The water reservoirs andairports are constructed on fault
lines. There is only one bridge acrossthe river. Though there is a certain
amount of awareness, guidelines are
not adhered to.
Should a Tsunami hit Manila Bay,it would have a devastating effecton all the cultural facilities andmuseums that have been built on low
ground behind the harbour.
There are approximately 23
Typhoons that hit the Philippines
each year. In 2009 Ondoy was twice
the size of Katherina and affected
twice the population. There are still
three million people displaced due tothis typhoon. The water only receded
after 12 weeks leading to the spreadof diseases. The damage to theWorld Heritage properties still has
not been assessed. What is left of theheritage? How do we audit it? How
do we condition report it? How do
we protect it?

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

29

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.5 Case study from Indonesia- Damage Assessment for the
Reconstruction of
Padang’s Urban Built
Heritage Yumi Isabelle AKIEDA
member of Japan ICOMOS NC
member of ISC Theory andPhilosophy of Conservation
Research Fellow, National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties
Tokyo

30

The West Sumatra Earthquake (M7.6) of September 2009 which was
followed by aftershocks and heavy
rains affected the urban environment
and architectural heritage of Padang.
There was a lack of response due
to insufficient communicationand information leading to slow
recovery. An assessment mission
for built heritage was carried out inNovember 2009 organized by theIndonesia government, the UNESCO
Jakarta Office and the National
Research Institute for Cultural
Properties Tokyo.
The task was to assess thesignificance and losses to theaffected heritage. A standard
operating procedure was to

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
and areas are to be established using
mild restrictions and guidelines. The
national system for the registrationof historic buildings needs to be
expanded with more complete
support measures within the nationaland municipal governments.
Regular surveys and research on thehistoric city and architecture must
be conducted and an understandingfor heritage protection must be
promoted amongst the citizens.

be developed for the various
components and phases of recovery.
Teamwork and coordination issues
need to be dealt with. Additionally,
all activities and procedures need tobe tailored to the specific context.
The objective of the damage
assessment was to formulate
reconstruction recommendations,guidelines and an action plan tosubmit to the authorities. This further
required priorities for restoration
and reconstruction planning to be
determined. The criteria to outline
the “degree of destruction” need to
be determined. This was critical,
since often simplification leads
to a lack of information to ensure
appropriate follow-up. This also
depends on the nature of the heritage
and the individual building. Various
checklists were prepared dependingon the stage of assessment, required
details and for documentation.
Survey on 57 out of 73 registeredhistoric buildings was carried out.
Visual assessment was carriedout to observe cracks, losses anddeformations to assess the state ofdamage both outside and inside.
The objective of the survey was tocomplement prior survey, collectdetailed information on thebuildings themselves, theirstate and factors of damage,define priority levels forrestoration and gather
previously uncollected
essential basic information
for the repair of heritagebuildings
The data was placed ina matrix, showing each

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanbuilding part with an overview ofdamage according to structural
materials (bricks, wood, concreteand steel) and issues in common todifferent building types. This was
the basis for restoration planning andprioritizing. The priority areas were
mapped and recommendations wereprepared for the repair of buildings.
It was recommended that a more
complete legislation for protection
was required. Stakeholders needto cooperate with the authorities.
Experts need to be provided with
instructions, education and training.
The heritage buildings are required
to be well maintained.

On completion of the assessment,
the assessment report was published.
The guidelines and action plans were
given to the authorities. However
this has not been implemented.
There is a lack of funding since
Padang is not World Heritage andis not given priority. Since this was
not considered a national disaster,
there are no set channels for funding.
However a follow-up mission has
been planned for October 2010.

Evaluation of historic buildings
was done based on priority and therepair guidelines depending on thehistoric and cultural value, the extent
of damage and the feasibility of
restoration.
The Guidelines that were developed
focus on four main aspects.
Measures for the protection andpreservation of historic areas
and townscape are to be widely
promoted. Systems for protection
and preservation of certain districts
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

31

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.6 Case study report from
Japan
Prof. Dr. Kanefusa Masuda
Research Centre forDisaster Mitigation of Urban
Cultural Heritage
Rits-DMUCH, Ritsumeikan
University, Kyoto, Japan

32

There are 17 World Heritage sites
under the Historic Monuments ofAncient Kyoto. The Daigo-ji temple,
a five storied Pagoda, built in 952
AD and the oldest building in Kyoto,
has paintings on the surface ofwooden members.
The Kyo-ou-gokoku-ji Temple (Built
in 794AD) is a wooden structurewith many religious objects. In the
Nijo-jo Castle (built in 1603AD)
the interiors are made of wood,
paper and organic material thatare flammable. All these heritage
structures are vulnerable to fire.
The following table shows thecategorization of cultural properties
in Japan and the respective laws fortheir protection. The system for theconservation of cultural property

has a long history, which changed
as it adapted to the social changes inJapan.

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
as Conservation Techniques by thecultural property protection law inJapan.
A large number of World Heritage
properties lie in earthquake prone
areas. Statistics would show thatthe highest number would be inSouthern Europe, followed by SouthAmerica, Eastern and Western Asiaand then South Asia.

The Horyuji Temple, a five storied
pagoda in Nara, which was built
between 680 and 700 AD nevercollapsed. Traditional building
structures are themselves important
to traditional knowledge systems.
These and similar structures havebeen restored over the years. A
study was done in the 1960’s on the
Hokki-ji pagoda built in 706AD to
determine how much of the original
materials still remain. The result
showed that the mean average oforiginal material was over 50%.
Wooden building needs constantmaintenance and reconstruction.
Traditional techniques and materials
are essential, and they are protected

During the Kobe Earthquake in
1995, a mansion which was built
in 1881 as the American consulate(now a restaurant) completely
collapsed. The structure whichused foreign building techniques
needed to be rebuilt as a safer
structure retaining the authenticity
of design and material. 70% of theoriginal material was reused. Thiswas possible because the structure
did not catch fire. However fires
destroyed large areas of Kobe.

The wooden cities such as Kyoto
have experienced many fires
during its 1200 year history. Today,
many of the heritage structures are
surrounded by wooden buildings.
These create a threat in case ofearthquake fires, often hindering
accessibility for fire engines. The
water reserves for extinguishingactivities are often insufficient for
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanlarge scale fires. In some villages
such as Shirakawa-go, traditionalfire-fighting systems were in place.
The thatched roofs were drenchedwith water from nearby ponds tokeep sparks away. Today modern
hydrant systems have been installedwith a 600 ton water reservoir on
the hill. Training is carried out every
spring and autumn which draws
many tourists to view the spectacle.
The Rokuon-ji Temple, originallybuilt in 1485 AD, was reconstructed
after the fire of 1950. The temple
had lost its authenticity, however it
was the garden that was inscribed
as a World Heritage. Ise Jingu, an
Imperial Shinto shrine, has beenreconstructed every 20 years over the
past 1300 years, retaining the same
design and craftsmanship. As per the
Nara Document, authenticity needs
to be defined as per the context andculture. This would be the basis fordeveloping an appropriate means ofconservation.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan33

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.7 Case Study of 1999
Taiwan Earthquake
Prof. Dr. Shang-Chia Chiou
National Yunlin University of
Science and Technology, Taiwan
The 921 Earthquake also known as
the 1999 Chichi (Jiji) Earthquake
or simply 921 was a magnitude
7.6 earthquake which occurred on
September 21, 1999. The Central
Weather Bureau of Taiwan recorded
a total of 12,911 aftershocks in the34month following the main tremor,
including another earthquake on
October 22, 1999 in Chiayi (known
as the 1022 Earthquake). Damage
caused by the earthquake included

2,416 deaths (including missing
people), 1144 severely wounded,with 44,336 houses severely
damaged and a total of about US$
9.2 billion worth of damage. It was
the second-deadliest earthquake inrecorded history in Taiwan, after the1935 Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake.
Since Taiwan is not a memberof UNESCO the post-disasterrecovery had to be done by local
scholars. Immediately following theearthquake an emergency cabinet
meeting was convened
to discuss how totackle the aftermath.
The same day the
military was mobilized,with large numbersof conscripted solders
heading to stricken
regions to assist in
all situations. On
September 25 President
Teng-hui Lee declareda state of emergency
in the affected areas,
giving sweeping powers to local
authorities to ignore the usual
bureaucratic and legal restrictions
on measures to bring relief to people
and locations most in need.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
According to the reports fromlocal governments, 91 designatedmonuments (authorized by the
Ministry of the Interior before2005) were damaged by the 921
earthquake including 3 designatedmonuments severely destroyed,that were estimated about US$ 94
million to renovate them. According
to Article 3 of the Cultural Heritage
Preservation Act, “cultural heritage”
refers to the following assets having
historic, cultural and/or artistic
value: antiquities, monuments,
national arts, folk customs andrelated cultural artefacts and natural
cultural landscapes. Unfortunately,
thousands of unlisted historicbuildings were cleaned up very
quickly by the military owing to thedeclaration of emergency.

This led to various activities. A
Cultural Heritage Rescue Team wasestablished involving 50 scholars
and about 400 students from 12
universities. Investigations on thedamage on historic buildings were
done. 222 historic buildings werelisted to exclude from the military’s
clean-up list. These buildings werethen classified under 4 categories;

severe, moderate, light and safe.
Temporary reinforcement or
consolidation was carried out. Laws
and regulations were amended
to include historical buildings.
Funds for renovation were sought
through appeals. Three technicalsupport centres were established.
Training courses were carried out
and handbooks for historic buildings
were published.

Some of the achievements fromthese efforts were the amendmentof Article 3 of the Cultural Heritage
Preservation Act to include historicbuilding and settlements. A support
system including grants and special
loans was established to conserve
historic buildings. The adaptive
reuse has become an important
issue for conservation of historicbuildings. Technical support
and advice were provided fromthree technical support centres. A
conservation quality control system
for historic buildings is still being
applied.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan35

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETINGICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.8 A comprehensive lesson
learnt from a heritage
disaster- The current trend inSouth Korea after the
Shungreamoon fire –CHOI Byung-ha
Expert of CHA, South Korea

36

There is an increase in fire related
disasters on wooden heritage
structures. Several structures inWorld Heritage sites have caught
fire. Some structures are additionallydamaged during fire fighting. The
authorities often have difficultychoosing the appropriate fire fighting
method. Large scale forest fires also
occur which is a major threat sincemost temples in Korea are located in
the mountains surrounded by forests.
Sometimes fires that start in a temple
spread to the surrounding forests.
There are an increasing percentage
of arson cases. The reason for thisrise in arson is probably a society
with increased economic, social andmental stress. The problem is how totake care of this stressed society.

The Shungreamoon gate wasoriginally constructed in 1479. It
was partially damaged in the 1950’s
during the Korean War. In 1962 it
was designated as the number one
national treasure in Korea. For the
Korean people, this designationof being “number one” has a big

significance and is the nation’s pride.
From 1961 to 1963, a big scale
restoration work was done. The firethat engulfed Shungreamoon began
at 20:47 on 10 February 2008 andcontinued till 02:05 on 11 February
2008, until the entire structure
collapsed. At 20:47 the gate wasset on fire by an arsonist. 3 minutes
later, the fire was alarmed. In another3 minutes, a fire engine arrived
and soon the National Emergency
Management Agency informed the
Cultural Heritage Administration of
the fire. A minute later, fire-fighterswent into the gate and the fire wasimmediately extinguished. Thispart went very well. Under normal
circumstances it would have been
impossible for the fire engines toarrive in 5 minutes, however on thatday it was a holiday and the streets
were empty. The problem was thatsmoke kept coming out from the roof
even though the fire was supposedly
extinguished. The firemen pointed
the water cannons at the point where
the smoke was coming from. At
21:37 the chief of the firemen finallyordered to get drawings of the gate;
they had not experienced such a fireand did not know what to do. They
received the drawings a couple ofhours later, but it was too late. The
Cultural Heritage Administration
had asked the firemen to extinguish
the fire carefully so that they would
not damage the structure. They later

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japanchanged the policy into active firefighting, but it was a very crucial
time for the firemen. At around 10,
the firemen found flames under
the roof. They tried to get into it
by breaking the tiles, but it was
impossible because of the frozen
surface. There was another wayof breaking the front panel of thegate, but they wanted to keep it. The
Cultural Heritage Administration’s
decision to break the panel to savethe material was way too late.
Eventually the 2nd floor collapsed,
but the 1st floor was safe
because it is made ofstones.
In the 1990s, great
thought went into figuring
out how to preserve
cultural properties.
Initially the Shungreamoon gate wasmade into a traffic island to ensurethat people could not get close to thestructure. However this was changed
and the space in front of the gate
was utilized for various activities
and people could get closer accessto the gate. The problem is how tobalance conservation and utilizationof cultural properties. The Korean
people saw their cultural prideburning down live on TV.
Generally, disasters such as theseon cultural properties lead tosocial issues which then escalate
to political issues. The merit is,for example, that people pay more
attention to cultural properties,

and eventually they become safer.
The demerit is, on the other hand,
there will be more social/politicalpressure on management. The truth
is veiled and forgotten until theevent becomes a kind of legend.
The opportunity to learn from thedisaster is lost. The link between the
Cultural Heritage Administration andthe local authorities is strong, but the
National Emergency Management
Agency is not interested in culturalproperties.
The arsonist was arrested.
One of his excuses wasthat the people should
not worry, since it ispossible to retrieve
the building throughreconstruction. We musthave the courage to saythat it is not possible to recover thevalue. However the Municipality
and the Cultural Heritage Authority
had already been developing a plan
to reconstruct and add parts of the
supposed historic wall. How can wedraw a clear line between restoration
and reconstruction?

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan37

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.9 Potential collaboration
between ICCROM and
ICORP
Daijiro Kitagawa
ICCROM

38

Activities of ICCROM concerning
RM
Meetings• Participated in the thematic
Session on “Cultural Heritage Risk
Management within the frameworkof the World Conference on Disaster
Reduction”, Kobe, Japan – 2005
(with WHC and Bunka-cho withsupport by Ritsumeikan University)• Organised the session on“Integrating Traditional Knowledge
Systems and Concern for Cultural
and Natural Heritage into Risk
Management Strategies”, Davos,
Switzerland – 2006 (with WHC)
• Final Recommendations of the
Meeting include the following text:• “Concern for heritage bothtangible and intangible should
be incorporated into disaster risk
reduction strategies and plans which
are strengthen through attention to
cultural attributes and traditional
knowledge.”• Help develop the “World Heritage
Strategy for Reducing Risks From
Disasters”• Day of Study on the Earthquake in
L’Aquila
Meetings & Workshops• 1st UNESCO WH Workshop on
Disaster Risk Reduction to Cultural
Heritage, Olympia, Greece 2008

• 2nd UNESCO WH Workshop on
Disaster Risk Reduction to Cultural
Heritage, Acre, Israel 2009
• ICCROM has been invited to be
the Clearing house on disaster risk
reduction• Workshop on “Assessment ofVulnerability of World Cultural
and Natural Heritage Properties toDisasters and Climate Change”,
Beijing, China 2009

Training Courses• Continuing collaboration with
Ritsumeikan University on“International Training Course on
Disaster Risk Management”• “First Aid to Cultural Heritage inTimes of Conflicts” (six-week course
currently underway 2010, Rome)• “Reducing Risks to Collections
Course” (four-week course 2009,2007, 2005, Beijing)• “First Aid to Cultural Heritagein Haiti” (three-week course, 0809/2010, Port-au-Prince)o Some aspects of risk managementin• Course on “Conservation of Built
Heritage” 2007, 2009, 2010
• “LATAM programme”

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Publications• FEILDEN, B.,
1987, Between Two
Earthquakes, Cultural
Property in Seismic
Zones, Rome/Los
Angeles, ICCROM/
Getty Conservation
Institute.
• FEILDEN, B. and
JOKILEHTO, J.,
1993, 2nd ed. 1998,
Management Guidelines
for World Heritage
Sites, Rome, ICCROM.
• STOVEL, H., 1998,
Risk Preparedness: A
Management Manual
for World Cultural
Heritage, Rome,
ICCROM.
• ICCROM, ICOMOS,IUCN, UNESCOWHC, 2010, Managing
Disaster Risks forWorld Heritage, WH
Resource Manual, Paris,
UNESCO.
• (A Manual of Collections Risk
Management by ICCROM &Canadian Conservation Institute are
currently finalizing)

publication, etc.; (e.g.
ICOMOS-ISC for the
Theory and Philosophy
has worked in a
number of conferences
and publications.
Conference andpublication on Values
and Criteria in Heritage
Conservation’’ in 2007)• Participate in meetingof ICORP…
Future Activities• “Risk management”
will be one ofthe pillars in the
Programme & Budget
2012-13 biennium;• In particular, weare planning for an
Exploratory Workshop
on Risk managementwith International andRegional Partners;• It might be a step tofurther develop new

programme?
• ICORP can be a partner in respect
to World Heritage, Material Science,
Living Heritage, Risk Management
and Regional Collaboration.

Potential Collaboration with
ICORP
Potential joint activities:• Invite ICORP members to engage
in ICCROM training courses andother activities• Conduct joint research activities
such as organisation of conference,
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

39

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.10 UNESCO Hague
Convention and its Second
ProtocolAkatsuki Takahashi
Programme Specialist for Culture
UNESCO Office for the PacificStatesThe Hague Convention of 1954 andthe Second Protocol address humaninduced disasters in respect totechnical and socio-cultural aspects.
The reconstruction of Dresden
took 60 years. It also dealt with the
movement of cultural properties
during the Second World War.

40

The definition of cultural property
is broader than that for heritage.
The definition of cultural property
by the Hague Convention is broad,including libraries, museums andarchives, shelters for culturalproperties, etc. The Hague
Convention stipulates the protectionof cultural property during armed
conflicts and in time of peace as
well. (Article 3 – in time of peace/ Article 4 – in armed conflicts)
Article 11 stipulates the withdrawalof immunity in exceptional casesof unavoidable military necessity.
Military necessity is describedvaguely. This was a major issue
which has been clearly defined in the
2nd protocol.

5 sites are under the Special
Protection regime by the 1954
Convention. Since the adoption of
the 1954 Hague Convention, manythings happened. In the field of
culture, various conventions havebeen established such as the 1972
WH Convention. On the other hand
cultural heritage has been damaged
during ethnic conflict in Cambodia
and in Croatia the Mostar bridge
was attacked because of its symbolic
value.

In 1990s, the end of cold war
allowed the advancement ofinternational criminal courts.
(ICTY – ad hoc / ICC – permanent)
These were behind the preparation
and adoption of the 2nd Protocol
in 1999. Intentional attack onhistoric towns and cultural heritage
constitute war criminals according toarticle 8 of the Rome statutes.
At the request of the Member States,
UESCO launched the elaborationof the 2nd Protocol. Adopted in
1999, the 2nd Protocol brought
about several improvements to theConvention. Upon the outbreak ofhostilities, a Party to the conflictmay request, on an emergency basis,enhanced protection of culturalproperty under its jurisdiction orcontrol by communicating thisrequest to the Committee. The
Committee shall transmit this request

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
immediately to all Parties to theconflict. In such cases the Committee
will consider representations
from the Parties concerned on
an expedited basis. The decision
to grant provisional enhanced
protection shall be taken as soon
as possible and, notwithstanding
Article 26, by a majority of fourfifths of its members present andvoting. Provisional enhanced
protection may be granted by theCommittee pending the outcomeof the regular procedure for the
granting of enhanced protection,
provided that the provisions ofArticle 10 sub-paragraphs (a) and(c) are met. In exceptional cases,
when the Committee has concluded
that condition (b) is not fulfilled,
the Committee may decide to grantenhanced protection, provided
that the requesting Party submits arequest for international assistanceunder Article 32.
Article 10 of the 2nd Protocol (1999)a) It is cultural heritage of thegreatest importance for humanity;b) It is protected byadequate domestic legal andadministrative measures
recognising its exceptional
cultural and historic value
and ensuring the highest
level of protection; (Special
consideration: Article 11.8)c) It is not used for military purposesor to shield military sites and a
declaration has been made by the
Party which has control over thecultural property, confirming that it
will not be so used.
The International Committee of Blue
Shield (ICBS) was established in
1996 comprising of a consortiumof five NGOs (ICA, ICOM,ICOMOS, IFLA, CCAAA) ICBS
plays a consultative role for the1999 Protocol and can also make a
recommendation to the Committee
regarding cultural properties to be
put under Enhanced Protection. In
that case, the Committee shall invite
State Parties concerned to make such
request.
Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the 2nd Protocol
provide more detailed rules andguidance. These were prepared by
the Intergovernmental Committee(12 State Parties) from the periodof 2005 – 2009 and endorsed by
the Meeting of State Parties in
November 2009. The new measures
include criteria for Enhanced
Protection based on the definitionof the Greatest Importance for
Humanity (GIH) - Not OUV but
Exceptional Cultural Significance(ECS). It further requires synergy
with the World Heritage List andMemory of the World Register.
The Intergovernmental Committeeof the 2nd Protocol made several
recommendations. A betterbalance of state parties
among different regions wassought. The cooperationand coordination among theWorld Heritage Committee,
the 2nd Protocol Committee
and the Committee
for the Memory of the World
Register was to be improved. The
Operational Guidelines were to befurther elaborated as an evolving
document in terms of measures tobe undertaken in time of peace,application to natural disasters,
application to peace keeping
operations, etc. This is still an
ongoing process. The 5th Meetingof the Committee will take place inParis, 22-24 November 2010.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan41

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.11 Christchurch Earthquake
Mary O’Keeffe
ICORP member
Secretary, ICOMOS New ZealandPresented by Robyn Riddett

42

Christchurch, located on New
Zealand’s South Island, was foundedin 1848, by British settlers. The city isbuilt on a wide alluvial plain, beside
two rivers. Whilst New Zealand islocated on the “ring of fire” (tectonic
plate boundaries) and is tectonically
active, Christchurch is not noted forearthquakes. However on 4 September
2010 an earthquake of magnitude 7.1
struck, with well over 100 aftershocks,
some measuring over 5 on the Richterscale. The estimated damages thus
far are NZ$4 billion. The death toll
was 0. The response has been fastand effective. Assessment teams wereon the ground the following day,assessing damage to buildings, andassessing further risk. The continuing
aftershocks further weakened alreadydamaged buildings. The Christchurch
City Council (CCC) was aware of
the importance of built heritage tothe region’s history and identity, andheritage issues were a high priority
from the start. The CCC issued press
releases and information forbidding
demolition without consent andwithout prior assessment. ICOMOS
NZ co-ordinated the establishment ofa skills list of volunteers from NZ andoverseas for heritage work.
In spite of the 7.1 magnitude ofthe earthquake the survival rate ofheritage buildings was high, withfew catastrophic building failures.
The major group of Gothic Revival
buildings which are essential to thecity’s architectural character and senseof identity survived the quake with
only limited damage. Many otherheritage buildings in the central city
survived with minimal damage. These
successes are largely the result of theextensive programmes of seismic
strengthening carried out over the last
three decades. Unless these can beconsolidated quickly there is a serious
danger of further structural failureand damage to contents and fittings,
particularly stained glass. Christchurch
and Canterbury possess the largest
collection of Victorian stained glass
in New Zealand, much of it of very
high quality. At least one significant
window has already been destroyed asa result of the failure of the east wallof the Church of the Holy Innocentsat Mt Peel, dating from 1869. Other
windows are in grave danger.
The very small number of buildings
surviving from the 1850s, mainlyof timber construction, appeared tohave survived the earthquake in goodcondition. From the 1860s onwards
there was increasing construction
in stone and brick. Where masonry
structures were strengthened inaccordance with both local andnational building codes, the structures
performed well. Damage resulted
from falling brick chimneys, some ofwhich have broken through roofs andseriously damaged interior spaces,
including, in one circumstance, an
important collection of colonial
furniture. Damage to brick houses
dating from the 19th and early 20th
centuries has been considerable.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETINGThe high level of awareness ofearthquakes in New Zealand from the
beginnings of European settlement in
the mid 19th century and particularly
since the Napier earthquake of 1931,
led to buildings and infrastructure
being designed to withstand them.
The fact that no lives were lost in the
Canterbury earthquake reflects thislevel of preparedness. Response toensure public safety was immediate
and rapid and damaged buildings werequickly cordoned off. Inspectionsof buildings began within a few
hours of the earthquake and every
structure was graded as unsafe(red); limited access (yellow) or safe
(green). As was inevitable, initialengineering assessments were rapid,
decision making variable and often
based on a limited knowledge ofindividual structures. As time went on
assessments were revised, sometimes
by the engineers who had designed thestrengthening systems for the buildings
concerned.

There was widespreadmisunderstanding that buildings
graded as unsafe were to be
demolished, and in the case of at least
one listed heritage building demolition
took place without any process being
followed and within 48 hours of theinitial earthquake. It seems likely that
this was an opportunistic exploitationof the earthquake that apparently
absolved the owner from giving
tenants notice and following the usual

process for demolition ofa heritage building. Hasty
demolitions of unlisted
character buildings haveoccurred, particularly insuburban areas in the days
immediately following theearthquake. In many cases
these buildings were almost
certainly repairable but
demolition suited owners’commercial objectives. Staffof the Christchurch City
Council heritage unit worked
alongside staff from the
New Zealand Historic Places
Trust’s Southern Regional
Office to prepare a data baseof damaged heritage buildings, toprocess applications for securing work,
requests for engineering assessments
and to stem a tide of hasty demolitions.
Efforts were also made in the days
following the quake to ensure thatrubble from damaged buildings wasinspected to prevent reusable materials
from being dumped.
Key points• Seismic strengthening and regular
maintenance make major contributions
to both public safety and building
survival.
• Buildings constructed after the 1931
Napier earthquake (and designed andengineered accordingly) generally
fared better.
• Wooden buildings generally faredwell, except for collapse of brickchimneys – stressing the need forreinforcing of brick chimneys.
• Just because a building is deemedunsafe, does not make it un-saveable.
• The need to gather and retain
collapsed material for possible
reinstatement has to be stressed.
• Vigilance is needed by city managers
to prevent opportunistic demolition by
owners.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan43

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.12 Disaster Planning in theUK
Sue Cole

44

The World War II and Cold War
emergency arrangements werereviewed after 9/11 and led to
the Civil Contingency Act. A
national structure was establishedwith government department andthe Cabinet office(COBR). Regional
Resilience plans were
established which
are regularly updated
which include yearly
exercises, coordinationand capacity building
activities. Emphasis ison the “Gold, Silver,
Bronze” approach,which means theinvolvement ofauthorities, emergency
services, NGOs,
charities away fromand on site. Resilience
covers natural disasters(Flood, Snow, Fire,
Earthquake, Hurricane
and Pandemic - footand mouth, flu),
man-made disasters(Accidents, Arson,
Terrorism andIndustrial action) and armed conflict(participation in overseas militaryand humanitarian actions).
These arrangements function
pretty much at a macro scale
although there is always room
for improvement. UK resilience
website includes information on
cultural heritage and impact on andcultural heritage is included in some
exercises. But recent events haveidentified particular challenges.
Responders often forget cultural
heritage is important. The system
is very dependent on a few people.
Climate change means there arerepeated events such as floods,
storm surges etc. These are notcovered by insurers. However the
UK Government approach is toencourage personal
responsibility rather
than state cover.
National cultural
heritage organisations
are beginning to give
advice on adaptations
to address flooding
and disasters linked
to climate change.
However there is
not much disasterplanning in the historic
environment field.
Lessons can belearnt from previous
disasters. The Uppark
Fire showed that eventhough the National
Trust had a good
Disaster Plan in placemajor events canoverload professionals.
While repair works
was going on, information on
disaster planning was provided and avisitor viewing gallery was provided.
The Windsor Castle fire was caused
by electrical overload. This led toa better disaster plan and increased
cooperation between organisations.
The sudden summer floods at
Boscastle had massive impact
on a small village. This was a
wake-up call to many authorities.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Hazard risk maps were
updated and local disasterplans produced. Basic
information was provided
to each household at risk.
Information on “do’sand don’ts” on repair tohistoric buildings were
issued.
Floods threatened theoperations of the historic
Severn Valley Railway which was
being run by a local volunteer group.
Good dissemination of information
and appeals for help ensured thesurvival of the Railway. The target
for the appeal of £300,000 wasreached in 4 days.
The capsizing of
the MS Napoli
threatened the Jurassic
Coast natural World
Heritage property.
An emergency plan
enacted to stop
pollution and looting.
The regional resilience plan
incorporates awareness of World
Heritage values and World Heritage
staff participated in exercises.
The European Union put in placea Solidarity Fund after the central
European floods in 2002. This pays
for infrastructure resilience projects
but is very difficult to access. The
EU funds resilience projects on a
range of issues; however culturalissues are traditionally dealt withby the Council of Europe. Should
the CoE be approached to address
disaster planning for cultural
heritage? There has been talk on
setting up a European task force
to help in disaster situations. How

can cultural heritage beembedded in? ANCBS iseffectively the executive
arm of the Blue Shield
based in The Hague anddoes lobbying, fundraisingand training and capacity
building for military andcivilians. Two Missions
were carried out; Cologne
and Haiti
There are some very basic
challenges.
• Communication:
At international, national, regional
and local levels, between civilians
and emergency services and themilitary, between different cultural
heritage sectors andprofessionals. Needa common language(disaster risk reduction,
emergency planning,and business continuity
planning ……..)•
CommonStandards
For maps and locational information,
values, assessment data, security
protected or freely accessible? How
do we maintain common standards?
How do we ensure information is
kept up to date? Who monitors?
Basic templates adapted or bespokefor each property? Training for all?
• Funding
How do we tap into the funds thatare out there? EU funds? Charities?
Sponsorship?
• RelevanceThe most fundamental challenge is
how do we make this relevant? Do
we need a champion? How can we
embed good management of cultural
heritage into peoples’ hearts andminds?

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan45

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.13 AmarbayasgalantMonastery, Mongolia
Chris Marrion

46

The Amarbayasgalant Monasteryin Mongolia has faced many neardisasters, however it was only after afire devastated 80% of the National
Gallery of Art that the issue wastaken seriously. The Arts Council
was responsible for the protection of
the Monastery. In 2007, through the
US ambassador’s fund for Cultural
Preservation, the purchase of fire
extinguishers was planned. The
fire bridge was located some twohours drive away. However it wasnecessary to develop a strategy toprotect the monastery and provide
information to the Lamas.
The Monastery was constructed in
1737. It was the largest Monastery in
Mongolia with two to three thousandmonks living there. From 1930
onwards under the Communists,
the site was largely destroyed andabandoned till the 1990s. Twenty
eight out of the forty temples
remain. Today there are only fifty
to sixty monks staying at the site.
The government is considering
nominating the monastery for theWorld Heritage List.
The objective of the study was tosee what could be done to reduce
the risk of fire, assess risks andhazards and develop a strategy.
There were various ignition sources

such as the electrical wiring and theoil lamps (friendly fires). In suchplaces of worship, these sourcesof fire are the main problems. The
second component that needs to beconsidered is the fuel for the fire.
It is important to suppress the fireas quickly as possible. This can bedone through smoke detectors andestablishing sprinkler systems.
However alternative strategies
needed to be considered that would
have immediate effect. Awarenessbuilding and training could be
carried out. A fire safety manager
is needed to be identified. Visitor
procedures needed to be reviewed.
Should a fire start, it would be
important to detect it as quickly
as possible which would require
a watch. Once detected, everyone
around would need to be notified
by means of some kind of system.
Possible means of fire suppression
would be required close at hand suchas wool, sand, earth or water.
The process of detection,
notification, and response and fire
suppression is the basic strategy
against fires. This process needs tobe established, especially in areas
such as the monks’ dormitories.
The key lessons are that fire happens
and it is important to have theability to respond. This requires
planning and strategies with clear
prioritise. Sustainability must also be
considered.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.14 Case Study from Finland
Minna Perähuhta
In Finland the greatest risk tobuildings are fires. Eighty percent ofbuildings are built of wood; wooden
structures, facades, etc. There arelots of fires that destroy buildings
and even entire towns. Heating isdone using wood fires. Sourcesof fires can also be candles andelectrical wires and appliances. Most
fires are however started by drunken
men smoking
in bed andfalling asleep.
There is also
a great impact
from climatechanges.
This has led
to extreme
climatic
situations suchas storms andhigh winds which are unprecedented.
There are international and national
standards however these are different
from the local level standards forindividual houses. For example there
are new energy norms.

participation. Even though the Stateand the municipalities might makeclear decisions, the citizens often
don’t accept the authority.
It is not possible to save all buildingsthat are over 100 years old. The mainthreat seems to be the constructionof parking lots. Such decisions aretaken by the municipality. There
are also oldchurches being
burnt down
intentionallyor througharson.
Owners also
do not care.
There are nomechanisms todeal with suchsituations.
Decisions
are taken at local level. Culturalproperties are often consideredliabilities.

Neglect is due to insufficient
information, respect and knowledge.
This is true not only for the owners
but also with the authorities. It
would be necessary to have alegal basis with local and public
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan47

ICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETINGICOMOS / ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING

3.15 Experience of the 2007
Pisco Earthquake, Peru
Teresa Vilcapoma Huapaya
On 15 August 2007, 18.40 an
earthquake of magnitude 7.9 struck
and five hundred and ten people
were killed. Three hundred people
died in the interior of churches andhouses. Sixteen thousand families
became victims to the earthquake
and ninety percent of building
affected

Other monuments affected inside the monument area. The Ica Cathedral:

Pisco was founded in 1640. The previous earthquake was in 1942 ofmagnitude 8.4. Sixty five years later in 2001 an earthquake of magnitude 7.9
struck.

The Sanctuary of Luren:

48

1942

2001

A similar incident took place with the Society of Jesus Church.The Mayor of
the City ordered the demolition of the church.

Preliminary identification of damage to heritagebuildings was prepared for the province ofCanete. These included religious, public, domestic
buildings including urban environmental andmonumental areas. The damage was assessed
under three categories: grave, moderate and light.
Additionally, a preliminary proposal with notes onrecovery and restoration were provided for each of
the buildings. Notification was sent to the property
managers to ensure that no demolition takes placewith prior consultations. However even though
recommendations were provided, the recognitionof many monuments were cancelled allowing for
demolition. This was the case of the San Clemente
Church in Pisco and the Luren Church andSocorro Chapel in Ica.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Various cathedrals and churches collapsed. Several churches were torn
down completely instead of being restored or reconstructed. The Pisco San
Clemente church, the towers survived but were later torn down.

49

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

SECTION 4
Report on International Symposium“How to Protect Cultural Heritage from
Disasters:
Risk Preparedness and Post Disaster
Recovery”

Keynote Speech 1:“Risk Preparedness for
Cultural Heritage in World –Challenge and Present
Situation”

Organized by
Ritsumeikan University Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban
Cultural Heritage (Rits-DMUCH) and ICOMOS-ICORP
Under the auspices of
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agency of Cultural Affairs, Japan-ICOMOS,Kyoto Prefecture, Kyoto Prefectural Board of Education and Kyoto City
140th Anniversary of Ritsumeikan Academy - 110th Anniversary of
Ritsumeikan University
Conference hall in Rits-DMUCH, Kinugasa Campus, Ritsumeikan University
Sunday, 26th September 2010: 13:00-17:30

I am delighted that finally there is areal pulse on ICORP, a committee ofinternational specialists that fulfils
one of the essential components ofthe mission of ICOMOS for sharing
experiences, providing guidance, andcooperating across borders, acrosscultures and across oceans. For
years we have been waiting for thisday, because unfortunately, over the
past decade we have gone through anumber of horrible catastrophes inevery continent without ICOMOS
having had the ability to provide
an appropriate response to ourcolleagues at the time of theirextreme need.

Proceedings of the International Symposium

50

Gustavo Araoz (ICOMOS)If ICORP has reached this level, it isvery much thanks to your chairman
Rohit Jigyasu, to Prof Masuda,
to Sue Cole and to all of you in
the Committee who have worked
decisively to overcome the obstacles
that had been blocking your pathto success. ICOMOS is grateful toeach and every one of you, as wellas those, such as Robyn Riddett andDinu Bumbaru, who helped develop
the early vision for ICORP.
2010 has brought us more thanour fair share of catastrophes. We
began in January with the horrific
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

earthquake in Haiti, followed byequally severe seismic activities
in Chile, China and New Zealand,
fortunately, all with less damage
and suffering than in Haiti. We also
had destructive floods in Guatemala,Pakistan, India, Poland, the Czech
Republic, Germany, the UnitedStates, Singapore and, again, in
China.
Risk Management is not myarea, and I do not like to speak
about fields in which I am not a
specialist, so I will try to steer
clear of speaking directly about
the methodologies related to risk
management and risk response.
What I know about this field is theresult of being in the position of
having to provide as President of
ICOMOS some meaningful responseto the heritage damage caused byrecent catastrophes. While thisis not a task that I will ever shy
away from, I assure you that in the
future, if I or my successors haveto face such situations again, theexistence of ICORP will enable
us to do it with the security thatcomes from knowing that we have aprofessional corps that can addressthese situations. So, as with all
the other ISCs of ICOMOS, I will
not diminish the calibre of yourdiscussions with my amateurish
comments. Instead, today I will
share with you what I think may besome of the lessons learned from theexperience in dealing with the Haiti
earthquake, the offer of assistancethat ICOMOS made to our HaitianProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

51

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

52

colleagues, and the difficulties that
we have encountered along theway. After that, I would also liketo share with you some ideas about
the role that ICORP could play inthe broader world of ICOMOS.
The main lesson from Haiti is one
you know very well and it is that,
preparedness is crucial. In Haiti
there was a complete absence of
preparedness in two ways: One was
the lack of preparedness to meetthe everyday challenge of heritage
conservation due to a very weak
institutional structure with a long
history of unsustainable programs
and ineffective results. This was true
at both the private and the2 public
levels. The result of this was thatfor years Haiti had been undergoinga major heritage disaster in slowmotion.
The other lack of preparedness wasin risk management. The January
earthquake of more than 8 points
in the Richter scale suddenly re-set
the speed of a tragic situation into
“fast-forward “ and submerged theheritage of the country, alreadyat high risk, into a condition of
maximum damage and vulnerability.
Once disaster hit, it was like a houseof cards collapsing. Everything wentfrom bad to worse, to worst. In a
country where most construction
relies on concrete and brick andblock masonry, the standards forconstruction materials and building
construction codes had for decades
been inadequate; and to make things
worse, those inadequate standards

were rarely enforced. As could be
expected, collapses were widespread
due to deficient steel reinforcement,
but even more so because the poor
composition of both poured in place
concrete construction as well asin prefabricated concrete masonryunits rendered the material unable
to absorb the forces created by thequake. One tragic aspect to thissituation is that for years, Haitians
buying concrete were not aware of
the poor quality of the materials they
were buying. So, lesson #1 is update
construction codes and standards tomeet the level of risk and enforce
them. The visuals that were carriedby the international media carriedsuch pathos that the international
community immediately responded
in an unusually compassionate effort
to alleviate such extreme destruction.
The response, however, was not
so easy. Since Haiti had been theobject of UN peace-keeping forces
for some years, it was difficult for
both insiders and outsiders to discern
where recovery responsibilities
rested, on national institutions oron the international peace-keeping
structure of the United Nations. It
quickly became not only a matter of
dealing with the physical disaster; it
was also an issue of a disentangling
a complex institutional disastersituation.
The weakness of institutions in Haiti
extended also to ICOMOS. Once a
promising National Committee in
the Caribbean region, the Committee
had been allowed to slowly decline

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
to the point that its total inactivity
led ICOMOS to declare it cancelled
a few years ago. The absence of
ICOMOS in Haiti made our work
more difficult. Even though anumber of us at least knew a few
of the key preservationists from theold days and were able to use thosecontacts.
As a nation, Haiti had repeatedly
failed to meet its present or futureneeds, and history seemed to becoming back to collect an overdue
unpaid bill. The national heritagelegislation in Haiti dates from 1940,
and is based on a grand monuments
concept that gives the State the very
narrow right to give protection andofficial recognition to only major
historic structures that belong to thegovernment. The government has
always felt that the law gave it noauthority to intervene over privately
held buildings, regardless of thevalues they could have acquired
over the years. This, meant that theofficial national heritage registerconsisted of a list of about 20
monumental buildings, of whichmost of the ones in Port-au-Prince
collapsed. There were no broader
inventories of historic urban
districts, of vernacular structures,of rural and industrial landscapes.
In 3 other words, there was no way
to measure the earthquake damage
to heritage structures beyond theofficially recognized monuments.
Another lesson, then, from thisexperience is one that is rather
obvious and that we tend to takefor granted, and it is that for an
appropriate disaster response, thebasic set of tools to protect heritage
under normal circumstances needs
to be functionally in place. Making
things worse in this very unhappy
story is that, like so many othergovernment buildings in Port-auPrince, the office and archives of
the country’s heritage authorities
were severely damaged. While thebuilding did not entirely collapse,
its damage rendered it dangerous
and inaccessible. Reportedly,
considerable amounts of singlecopy archival material was lost,which takes us to lesson #3: always
have redundant archiving systems
in separate locations, and give
maximum physical protection to
major repositories. Under these
conditions, ICOMOS and all theinternational assistance community
has to respond to this catastrophe
under the most uncertain conditions.
Our only possible response wasto offer our Haitian colleagues avery ambitious assistance program
consisting of a sequence of events
that addressed a program of rapid
heritage identification, damage
assessment, and finally of repair andrecovery.
As risk management specialists you
all know that every risk preparedness
methodology recognizes thephenomenon of local communal
shock in the immediate aftermathof a devastating catastrophe, andtheir inability to think clearly to takemajor decisions. That is why disaster

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan53

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
scenario games are important, andwhy response plans train certain
key response team members on
the implementation of actions
according to a pre-established setof criteria and scenarios, without
putting emotionally over-stressedindividuals in the position of having
to come up with difficult decisions.
Such was the case in Haiti, where all
heritage authorities had undergone
severe personal losses.

54

What our first mission to Haiti led by
Esteban Prieto and Dinu Bumbaru
found the week after the earthquake
was a dire need for help, but except
for a few focused details concerning
the village of Jacmel, there was no
specific guidance from our Haitiancolleagues as to what that massive
assistance should be. And this was
the reason that ICOMOS took the
initiative to develop the ambitious
assistance and recovery menu.
You will recall that to populate ourassistance teams, ICOMOS issued
a call for expert volunteers, and the
response was overwhelming. Withina month we developed a databasethat contained over 300 names that
we made available to the Haitians.
ICOMOS was ready to mobilize, andeven though we had no idea about
the level that our mobilization would
entail, potential funding sources
for mobilization were identified.
However, in spite of frequent
messaging to Haiti to accelerate
our assistance we met continued
silence at the other end. We pursued
a number of access lines to Haiti,

most visibly that of working closelywith UNESCO. ICOMOS attended
the meetings convened in Paris tocoordinate emergency assistance,
and in every one of those occasions,the same generous offer waspresented to the Haitian heritage andcultural authorities in attendance.
In Washington, we met with the
Minister of Culture designatedby the Haitian President to be incharge of all foreign reconstruction
assistance, and to whom I reiterated
the ICOMOS offer. The overall
objective presented by the Haitians
at all these donor meetings was very
encouraging. They wanted to useinternational assistance not so muchto return to the earthquake statusquo ante; instead they wanted tofind a silver lining in this darkest of
clouds to build solid institutional thatwould sustain the socio economic
development that for so long has
eluded Haiti. To achieve this, theHaitians insisted, they had to be
in full charge of accepting andcoordinating all foreign assistance.
In other words, the international
assistance community was to standby and wait for a green light tomobilize. Respectful of this wish,
ICOMOS offered help to the Haitiancultural authorities by gatheringand consolidating the many offers
for heritage recovery proposedby the major donor countries.
At my request, many of our
National committees gathered suchinformation, and again, it was sent toboth Haiti and to UNESCO. Still, no
response. And standing by without

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
any response is what we have now
been doing for almost nine months.
Let me state that our frustration is
not unique. Many assistance anddonor organizations are deeply
concerned by the shared inability tohelp improve local conditions thatare simply getting worse. As is thenature of these events, we are now
well into the stage of increasing
donor and media fatigue. Moneyand interest are inevitably flagging
and being diverted to other issues.
I don’t know whether we will becalled to help, nor do I know that if
we do, we will be able to secure thenecessary funding now.
The one minor success that we didhave was through our cooperation
with World Monuments Fund, who
moved aggressively ahead witha privately sponsored mission toevaluate damage in the historicGingerbread district of Port-auPrince, a site in their Watch List.
Our volunteers from ISCARSAH,
led by Steve Kelley and supported
by our Steering Committee (which
was chaired by Dinu Bumbaru
and included among others, Prof
Masuda, Rohit Jigyasu and Rasool
Vatandoost of Iran), developed
a rapid field damage assessment
methodology that was used by theWMF, whose mission members
consisted of many ICOMOS
members. ICOMOS also contributed
the dazzling work of Randolph
Langenbach of large-scale oblique
aerial photo-murals that was
intended to facilitate the rapid

identification of unlisted heritage
structures in the absence of real
inventories. As far as we know, theaerial photomurals have not beenused. Through our cooperative workin Blue Shield, multi-language signs
to visibly identify every heritagesite to prevent its demolition during
the clearing operations were printed
in Austria and sent to Haiti via the
Dominican Republic. ICOMOS
also participated by sending Lynn
Fontaine of Canada in a recent World
Heritage Centre risk management
mission requested by Haiti to theWorld Heritage site of La CitadelleSans Souci, but this is not directly
related to the earthquake, as theproperty is located in an area thatwas not affected by the tremors. The
last time met with the Haitians wasat the World Heritage Committee
meeting in Brasilia last month.
Once again, I reminded Daniel Elie,
the head of ISPAN, of the standing
offer made by ICOMOS, and thistime he did agree to accept ourhelp in developing new heritagelegislation. Our ICOMOS Legal
Committee-ICLAFI -has alreadybeen asked to begin this work.
I wish I had more success to report
to you on Haiti, but I do not. The
case of Haiti, of course is so extreme
in damage and so complicatedby the uniquely peculiar local
conditions and circumstancesthat I don’t know whether thelessons to be learned from thisexperience are vast, or whether

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan55

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

56

they are so particularly unique as
to not be very useful at all. What I
do know is that we should not be
discouraged by our experience in
Haiti. I mentioned at the beginningof this talk that the reorganization
and activation of ICORP is for
ICOMOS a cause for celebration.
If we cannot respond in Haiti, atleast we all know that sadly, moredisasters will come and hopefully
ICOMOS will be more ready nexttime with a more professional andless ad-hoc response to a tragic
situation. What does it mean for
ICOMOS to be ready? That is up toyou, the ICORP experts, to decide.
In talking to Rohit, Sue and Prof
Masuda, we agreed that I should
conclude my talk with a vision for
the role of ICORP in ICOMOS.
That role, of course, will be largely
up to you to develop and fulfil. I
can however, add a few big-pictureideas: The Bureau of ICOMOS has
recognized the need to drive home
the importance of risk management
planning in every heritage
community , along with developing
our ability to assist them in thistask. This would include training
and the development of mutual
support networks and partnership,
specialized information, manuals
and other tools.

My vision is that ICOMOS
should be ever ready to come tothe assistance of heritage in theaftermath of any disaster anywherein the world. For me, that requiresa strong and energetic ICORP, andwould include• Maintaining an updated baseof volunteers with specificqualifications.
• Developing damage assessment
methodologies for the full range ofheritage resources.
• Have in store the equipment andall the tools necessary to achieve
rapid deployment of teams in theaftermath of disaster.
• Have a permanent fund tosustain the initial rapid deployment
and assistance stages until otherdonations can be secured to sustain
later stages and replenish the fund.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

Keynote Speech 2:“Cultural Heritage of Near
Future – Case of Kyoto”
Kenzo Toki (Ritsumeikan
University)

As I have been involved in the fieldof disaster prevention, I have cometo think that the people in Kyoto are
not too concerned about the future,
though they have relied on what
has been inherited from the past.
Today I would like to focus on theintergenerational justice.
The modality of disaster risk
management for cultural property
greatly changed after the Kobe
Earthquake. I have worked in thisfield for 15 years, believing thatthe field of disaster prevention
and the field of cultural property
studies, which were ignorant of eachother before the great earthquake,should collaborate together. The
chance where I came to that stateof mind was the big fire in the cityof Kobe which occurred due tothe earthquake. Fortunately, there
was not much of cultural heritagein Kobe, but there was also an
incident that the fire preventive
facility in Ninna-ji Temple in Kyoto
malfunctioned.
Kyoto Basin has
such a small space,but embraces a
number of nationaltreasures in it. A big
inland earthquake
is predicted to
strike Kansai Areasoon, within 30-40
years; it might cometomorrow. We needto move fast. There
have been repeatedly
active seismic time
periods and peaceful periods each ofwhich is around 120 years, and now
we are living in an active time.
The reason why I specifically talkabout Kyoto is the proportion of
the number of cultural properties
to the population. In Kyoto, there
is a cultural property per every
1000 people while the proportion isabout 10 times smaller in the othermain cities in Japan. There are somany cultural properties in Kyoto,
considering its population.
The situation has changed fromthe old days due to the spread of
the urban area. There used to be
no residential house around eachtemple, but now it is surrounded byso many houses. Today we need toProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan57

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
consider possible fires coming fromthe outside of temples, as well as
fires that will occur inside.
A number of temples and shrines
were burnt down during the Civil
War Era and the Meiji Renovation.
It means there were 2 big losses ofshrines and temples in Kyoto in thepast. The third time, if there will be,
could be caused by an earthquake.
The Kobe Earthquake in 1995 killed
more than 6000 people, and broughtdamages of 10,000,000,000,000
yens, which was equal to a quarter

One of the pilot projects was takenplace in Sanneizaka in Kyoto,
which took a totally distinct courseof decision making from the usual
policy making in Japan. First NPO
and the local residents held a coupleof meetings to make a draft plan, andproposed it to the Kyoto municipal
office. Then the mayor of Kyoto
requested a budget from the central
government. This is how the project
started. We installed 2 tanks each ofwhich can contain 1500 tonnagesof water, and connected with pipes
made of polyethylene, which isstrong material to earthquake groundmotion. We are about to finish theconstruction work this year.
We are not only talking about
abstract concepts, but also
implementing concrete and practicalprojects. Today we do what will be
helpful for people in the future.

58of the national budget at that time.
It raised people’s awareness fordisaster risk management of cultural
heritage. In 1997, activities ofadvocacy by NPOs / NGOs started.
In 2003, a national committee wasformulated. I was the chairmanof the second round committee
in 2008, and in its final report thenational decisions toward protectionof cultural properties were stated. I
believe that was a small but strong
step for promotion of the issues
concerned with protection of cultural
heritage from seismic disasters.

In order to achieve disaster risk
management for cultural properties,
people from various fields need tocooperate. This COE is now going
through its 8th year. We are to realize
the cooperation in the remaining 2
years and a half.
Protection of cultural heritage
from natural disasters is what theuniversity researchers have beenworking on, but it is also importantto realize that it consists of just apart of the problems concerned with
cultural heritage. Now I have cometo think that it is important to lookat cultural heritage from a broader

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
perspective because just to think
about natural disasters is not enough,and that we should take actions
for the future of Kyoto. Kyoto atpresent time greatly relies on cultural
heritage from the past but we are
not offering much of anything forcoming generations.
We need to realize that there are somany gifts that the people in 100
years ago sent for us in terms ofpreservation of cultural properties.
For instance, Heianjingu Shrine isa shrine that was built
in commemoration of
the 1100th anniversaryof the capital transfer to
Kyoto, and is conveying
the traditional stylearchitectures in the HeianEra. Jidai Matsuri, one of
the 3 biggest festivities in
Kyoto, just started some
100 years ago. Biwako
Canal is bringing waterfrom Biwa Lake, locatedin Shiga Prefecture next
to Kyoto. The drinking
water of people in Kyoto today isprovided by the facility built morethan 100 years ago. Another example
is the fire fighting facilities in
Higashi-Honganji Temple.
I have been working with influential
people for the sake of the future of
Kyoto, including the president of
Kyoto Prefecture, mayor of Kyoto
City, presidents of universities,
members of Kyoto Lions Club andheads of temples in Kyoto. The

temples in Kyoto are very powerfulorganizations in terms of cultural
heritage conservation. It took 10
years to found Kyoto Platform for
Cultural Heritage for Tomorrow. It isgoing to be effectuated on the 21st of
October this year. Its name platform
indicates that anyone can join us at
any time. We appointed Mr. Koichiro
Matsuura, a former managing
director of UNESCO, to director.
We are now planning to found acommittee for younger generations.

59

As of something visible andtangible, we are reconstructing
Rashomon Gate, which was an
entrance of the old capital of Kyoto.
We are intending on enhancing
the public awareness for cultural
heritage conservation, having people
reminisce over the long history of
Kyoto. Rashomon is planned to bebuilt with donation from citizens.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

Keynote Speech 3:“Risk Preparedness for
Cultural Heritage –From a point of view of
UNESCO New Delhi”
Moe Chiba (UNESCO New Delhi)Over the past decade, there has
been a growing recognition of
the importance of disaster risk
preparedness and managementof cultural heritage sites. While
the subject became prominent

60

recently during the 2005 UN World
Conference on Disaster Reduction(Kobe, Japan, 2005) and thanks to its
Hyogo Declaration and Frameworkof Action, ICOMOS had been
already actively advocating for the
inclusion of risk preparedness inthe cultural heritage management assoon as the early 1990’s. Likewise,
ICCROM has been carrying out
numerous training activities on
the subject since late 1990’s.
UNESCO, too, has been publishingseveral manuals and guidelines onprotecting cultural sites including
the one specifically on the disastermanagement of World Heritage
Sites. Besides, the number of
symposiums and workshops related
to the topic seems to be on a rise
every year.
Notwithstanding the merit of such
efforts, the principle advocates ofheritage, in particular UNESCO,
would want to further ask
themselves why the implementationis yet to follow at thenational level despiteof the multiplicationof conferences,recommendations, action
plan and guidelines;
and, to what extent these
events and materials are
effective in assisting theheritage conservation
practitioners in a realterm. The presentation
shared with the audiencesome of the personalobservations – doubts
and dilemmas - about our current
effort to mainstream heritage
concern in the framework of natural
disaster management from theperspective of a UNESCO field
officer.
Many recommendations andaction plans; but why the
implementation does not follow?
Is our approach relevant or
sufficient?

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Interactions with the Government
departments and local heritage
conservations reveal that there isnot so much the lack of awarenessor understanding about the need fordisaster mitigation plan for heritage
sites, but rather the absence ofnational resources, both human andfinancial, is the real issue. Section
below provides some facts andfigures from Bhutan, Maldives andIndia to give ideas on the groundreality under which the heritage
practitioners are operating:

Example of Bhutan: Bhutan has
recently graduated from LDC
status, however poverty alleviation
remains the utmost national priority.
Human resources in the Division
for Heritage Conservation isextremely limited with some 16
technical staff only to look after the
up-keeping of some 2000 historicalbuildings scattered across thecountry, in addition to supervising
the construction of new traditionalarchitectures. Two colleges areavailable giving advanced course
on engineering, however there isno faculty to study local traditionalarchitecture. The country has noscientific research institutions
to support the work of heritage
conservation. After the September
2009 earthquake, the Division forConservation of Heritage Sites has
been trying to advocate the intrinsic
advantage of traditional architecture
against RC construction, however invain, as the Division has been so far
unable to provide with scientific data
to backup its views.

Example of Maldives: The
Maldives is a LDC with a typicalsmall-island economy largely
dependent on fishery and tourism.
Tsunami in December 2004 affecting
64% of GDP was a major setback
to the Government’s development
agenda. The country has limited
number of ‘historical buildings’,
thus heritage conservation has neverbeen the obvious area of work for
the Government. However, thecountry is known to have importantnumber of Buddhist sites, that would
require thorough study and if tapped
well, would be another potential
tourism resource for the country
other than beaches. The lack ofcountry’s human resources in thisarea is however even more acute:

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan61

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
the country counts only one trainedarchaeologist. The highest education
degree offered in the country stops at
high-school so far.
Example of India: India cannot be
said to be short of funds or humanresources. Nonetheless, the sheer
size of the country and the numberof the cultural sites is a major
challenge. There are more than
3500 sites under the responsibilityof Archaeological Survey of India(ASI), another 3000 under the State
Departments of Archaeology, not tomention hundreds and thousands ofhistorical cities, towns and villages

62

with vernacular houses whichcome under the purview of any
government department. In 2007-08,
ASI was allocated with an importantannual budget of 22 million USD.
However, dividing this sum by 3500
sites, an annual budget allocation
per site would be 6000 USD, whichis hardly adequate if one tries toundertake any serious conservation
work.
This is a short overview of thecontext within which some countries
are struggling to fulfil their mandate.
In face of such multiple constraints,

a series of international conferences,
general recommendations andguidelines are ultimately of nouse, but could even be a sourceof frustration as these events anddocuments fail to address the reality
ground under which the heritage
departments of the developing
nations are operating. Instead,concrete tools and mechanismsthat would support their capacity
building and implementation seem tobe required.
What support tools and mechanisms
would field practitioners find useful?
Some of the supports, which thelocal heritage conservators areconstantly looking for include:(a) Easy access to relevant andreliable data: there is no dearthof resource persons and usefulcase studies somewhere in theworld. However, such information
is often scattered and not always
easy of access. Field practitioners,
engrossed in their day-to-day
assignment, do not usually havetime to search either. Further, when
one has access to information, it
is difficult to know if this could
be trusted. To this end, an on-line
database where list of resource
persons and case studies are stocked
in one place, and where, in addition,
the peer review is provided, which
could be a useful tool, that may be
proposed to ICOMOS, ICCROM
and/or UNESCO for possible
development.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM(b) Response/advice to their dayto-day technical queries: local
sites managers are constantly anddesperately seeking for guidance
to their concrete technical issues
that arise on a day- to- day basis.
Their tasks are as concrete andpragmatic as where to place thefire extinguisher and water pipes
in the 14th century old temples
or how to reinforce timber frame
structures. Site managers are also
at the front line of sometimes
difficult negotiations with local
stakeholders, and are often called toact as agents for awareness-raisingand training of local population,
which requires another specific setof communication and teachingskills. Another on-line platformof practitioners where heritage
conservators and engineers can
submit technical queries appears
to be useful. Such system alreadyexists in India. Developed andimplemented by UN office inIndia, the system, called Solution
Exchange, offers a space for
dialogue for the communities
of practitioners respectively inthe area of education, water,
disaster management, IT, poverty
alleviation etc. While no platform
exists for heritage conservationand engineering, it is tempting to
make one either via ICOMOS or
ICCROM.
(c) Continuous and long-term
relationship with supporting
partners: international technicalassistance has been often criticized

for being ‘one-off’; ‘short-term’and ‘no follow-up’. Expert
mission is one of the classicalforms of international assistancefor countries in need of support,
especially immediately following
the disaster. However such mission
has disadvantage of being limited
in duration and frequency. Besides,
a common complaint is that theinvited experts are not sufficiently
familiar with local context, thus
their recommendations end up being
general and not so useful.
Training workshops, such as thepresent one being organized by
Ritsumeikan University, is anotherform of international assistance,
which is often appreciated andwhich, one hopes to see happening
more often. However it also has its
weakness of addressing to a selected
few with limited outreach. Further,such international workshop isresource heavy and could not be
maintained unless important funding
source is available.
While the merit of expert missions
and workshops should not be
undermined, one also needs to admitthat they are not the most suitableform of technical support, whenit comes to the capacity buildingof a national heritage team, which
requires a long-term mentoringprocess. To this end, it seems
worthwhile to explore the possibilityof developing a long-term bilateral
partnership agreement between
countries needing support andProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan63

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
academic institutions abroad capableof offering required scientificresearch and technical advice. This
form of collaboration, where, forinstance, a team of two experts froma research institution visits a partnercountry once a year for two weeks,
and this over the period of 5 years,
could be less resource heavy andefficient in terms of impact at a local
level, as compared to organizing aninternational workshop.
Heritage Preservation during andafter Disaster– How convincing is
our argument outside our own circle?

64

There is perhaps room for UNESCO
and heritage advocates in general
to critically assess how persuasive
is our argument for heritage
preservation in the context ofdisaster, noting that heritage has
never been the main priority in thenational development agenda ofmany of the countries.
Since 1980’s UNESCO has been aforerunner of the concept of Culture
and Development. Critics havenoted however that while muchprogress has been made in terms ofrhetoric, the concept is yet to be fully
understood in practice. The concept
is certainly valid for developed
countries, which has managed tobuild its economy around creative
industries, but this is still not thecase for many of the developing
nations. Culture and heritage are notpart of UN Millennium Development
Goals. An OECD report in 2007

noted that only 1.7% of the ODA
in the world was spent on culture
related projects.
When culture and heritage is thelast point of development agenda, it
is all the more difficult to convince
the governments on the importanceof heritage in the wake of disaster.
While it is easy to blame theprevailing heritage-insensitivity
amongst the government officials
and hard-core development agents,
the heritage advocates, may also
want to assess what pragmatic
evidence and data we have beenable to provide to convince thenon-heritage people about the meritof investing in culture and heritagein general and after disaster inparticular.
During the early response phase,the priority is given to humansecurity, namely shelter, food andsanitation. Providing a “sense ofcontinuity” in terms of livelihoodand social network (family, friends
and neighbours), then comes as the
key focus of the recovery phase.
If we are to advocate for heritage
preservation, it is necessary that welearn to position ourselves withinthese fundamental logics of disastermanagement and argue our cases
using their languages rather than ourown.
To this end, understanding the
economic and social values ofcultural heritage for peoples living
within and around the heritage is a

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
vital step. Surprisingly, despite of
the popularity of UNESCO World
Heritage Sites and their contribution
for tourism sector, case studies onsocio-economic value of specificcultural heritage sites do not appear
to be many, or if they are available
somewhere, they are not usedeffectively by the heritage advocates,
whose focus has been on historicand aesthetic value of built elements
rather than their contemporary socioeconomic functions. Such multidisciplinary studies are however
to be encouraged, if the heritageadvocates wish to support their cases
beyond their limited professional
circle.

one of the institutions to consider
kick-starting a long-term mentoringcollaboration with some of thecountries needing support.
Thank you for your attention.

These are some of the points thathave emerged out of my personalobservation as a field officer of
UNESCO, and which I hope would
serve as food for thought for ourcommon goal for protection ofheritage.
To end with, I would like to express
my deep appreciation to Ritsumeikan
University and in particular toProfessor Kanefusa Masuda,
who, immediately following the
September 2009 earthquake in
Bhutan, rang UNESCO New Delhi
to ask if his university could beof any assistance. Thanks to thisoffer, UNESCO New Delhi wasable to field two technical missionsin Bhutan without much delay.
Such a dedicated partner is reallyprecious and UNESCO New Delhi
hopes Ritsumeikan University to be
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan65

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

Keynote Speech 4:
International Training Course
for
Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage
Kanefusa Masuda (Ritsumeikan
University)

66

I would like to present a brief reporton the training course this year. This
year’s International Training Course
for Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage took place fromthe 13th to the 24th September. The
Training Course has been held since2006 as part of UNESCO Chair
Program, reviewed and licensed by
UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
It is publicized on the website
of UNESCO, and we receive somany applications every year. The
UN World Conference was held
by UNESCO, ICCROM and the
Agency for Cultural Affairs in Kobe
2005 in order to direct international
disaster prevention policies in the
coming 15 years. Cultural heritage
was also included in the agenda. It
was a good chance for us to start
the training program. Through the
5-year pathway of the program, 22
teams have participated in total.
We received over 70 applications
this year. The training course is a
short-term, intensive program thatlasts for 2 weeks. Our main target
is government officers of middle
standing, but the participants inthe past also include people withother occupations such as university
professors. Our basic goal is toshare the rich experience of natural
disasters on cultural properties inJapan, as well as the knowledge on
countermeasures against them, withinternational experts, for there areboth so many cultural properties
and natural disasters in Japan. The
cultural properties in the old city of
Kyoto were registered as UNESCOWorld Heritage, named Historic
Monuments of Ancient Kyoto.
This year, we added new emphasison post-disaster recovery
procedures. The course comprisedof various lectures, and site visits
and workshops in Kiyomizu Temple,
Sanneizaka, Ninna-ji Temple, Kobe
and Sasayama. We welcomed only
one male participant, but it waspurely the result of the scoring
by ICCROM. We always choose
participants with consultation to
ICCROM. This is a good proof of
the fact that more and more womenare standing in the international
centre stage of cultural heritage
studies today.
From now, I would like to briefly
introduce you what the management
plans that the participants made,are like. The Bhutan team madea disaster management plan for
Wangduephodrang Dzong, which
is a fort and municipal office ofthe government at the same time.
The structure has conveyed the
traditional architectural style ofTibetian Buddhist culture. The
exterior is made of stones, but theinterior is wooden, and it would
be so vulnerable to fires occurringfrom the inside of the structure.
Two experts who work on cultural
heritage conservation in the central
government made mainly a detailed

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
evacuation plan of valuable art
works housed in the Dzong.

various sectors involved in urban
planning.

As of the Palau team, we invited
Mr. Alexander, who is a director of
UNESCO domestic team in Palau.
Palau is the first country from thesouth Pacific region to join thisprogram. A disaster mitigation
plan was formulated for several
old wooden public houses. There
are paintings on the beams of thehouses. This is how the culture andhistory were recorded and submitted
in Palau that has no written
literature. They are basically meetinghouses but they also functioned asplaces that pass down history to next
generation. Despite of the lack ofdetailed references or data, the Palau
team formulated a very good plan
to protect such houses with local
communities.

The target site of the Serbia teamis Belgrade Fort. Belgrade is
the capital of Serbia, and it has
experienced a lot of damage due tocontinuous battles of the warfare.
Now it is a peaceful time, and theteam has made a plan of utilizing
the fort as a symbol of the cultural
identity of divided various races
and ethnic groups. It would playa very important role for mutual
understanding between different
ethnicities. To support that, adisaster mitigation plan for manydifferent types of buildings in thesite was drafted. Not just emergency
preparedness, but also short- andlong-term recovery processes wereconsidered.

Cusco is the target site of the Peru
team. From among the 5 participant
countries, Peru has especially a lotof earthquakes similar to Japan, andtherefore how to preserve historicbuildings from seismic disasters
is an issue. In the Inca days, many
masonry buildings were built, andthey are strong against earthquakes.
However in 1500s as Spain invaded,
the architectural tradition was passed
down to Spanish architects, and there
were more European-style buildings.
The definition now is how tocoincide those two types of buildings
with each other and to preserve thevalues. The team formulated a rescue
plan and retrofitting plan for thebuildings surrounding San Francisco
Square which is located in the centreof Cusco, gaining engagements fromThe historic area that the Turkey
team targeted is not developed
much for the decrease of dwellers
population, and as a consequencemuch of the historic landscape has
been maintained. How to protect
it for the future was studied. Manydifferent risks from various natural
hazards were considered, and againstthem resque areas, evacuationroutes, operation centers and others
were put together. Separate to that,possible involvement of the public
for protecting the area was alsostudied.
They are just two-week efforts
and therefore far from perfect, but
anyway I am pleased to show you
the fruits of hard works by theparticipants.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan67

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

Panel Discussion“How to Protect Cultural
Heritage from Disasters:
Kyoto and World”

Presentation 1
Speaker: Hideki Sunahara68

I am giving you a presentation
as a person who is in charge ofprotecting cultural properties in Toji
Temple. In 794, Emperor Kammu
established the capital Heiankyo in
Kyoto. In the east and west sides of
Suzakumon, which was consideredas the main entrance to the city,
Toji and Saiji were built. These
temples were designated by theemperor to be built, and therefore
we can say that Toji is kind of anational temple. In 825, Emperor
Saga tried to introduce a new trendof Buddhism from China, anddesignated Toji as a particular temple
which has a function of promotionof the academic studies of the newbranch, Shingon School. Saiji,
the west temple, was dismantled
after the Ritsuryo Registrations
were demolished, while Kukai, thegreat founder of Shingon School,
tried hard to retain all the Buddhist
artifacts and documents in Toji hebrought back from China. They arestill intact today and are designatedas national treasures. It is the resultof monks and local people who havebeen very helpful for protecting thetemple from disasters, especiallyfrom the fires after battles.

In Muromachi Era, the 15th century,
there were continuous battles in thecity of Kyoto for 10 years. Most
parts of Kyoto were burnt down
to ashes. In order to protect thebuildings in Toji, the monks tried
not to take a specific side to avoid
battles, as well as moved the artifacts
to Daigoji Temple for preservation
sake. The artifacts and documents
were eventually preserved.
In 1486, there was a farmers’ revolt,
and many farmers came together
in Toji, which resulted in a fire in
the main hall. The fire spread andthe whole temple structures except
the pagoda were reduced to ashes.
There is a record saying that at thattime people living around the temple
tried to evacuate the statues to safer
places.
The structures were reconstructedbased on the positions of thefoundations remained after the fire.
All the buildings were built in thesame manners and in the same scalesof which they were constructed
originally. There are 80 nationaltreasures, 3683 special cultural
heritage assets and over 90000
undesignated treasures in the temple
today. It is considered as a miracle
that such a big number of artefacts
have been retained. The reason why
they are still intact is that the local
community was very much involvedin curbing fires which brokeout. Even today, the fire brigade,which consists of local community
members, works to secure the area

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
together with the fire department andthe temple office. In addition, thetemple is equipped with surveillance
facilities for fire detection such as
monitoring cameras and sensors. The
surrounding area is also monitored
very tightly.
Presentation 2
Speaker: Shang-Chia Chu
Today I would like to share ourexperience of 1999 Jiji Earthquake.
So many disasters happen in
Taiwan every year: earthquakes,
fires, typhoons, floods and rapidlychanging weathers. Recently there
are also arsons on monuments. This
year there was another big typhoonthat killed over 5000 people.
On September 21st, 1999, a big
earthquake occurred in the centreof Taiwan, and it killed more than2400 people. The total damage was
as much as 92 billion dollars. It was
the second biggest earthquake in therecord in Taiwan started from 1935.
The military helped cleaning up
the debris immediately after theearthquake. Some of the damaged
historic buildings were also cleaned
up unfortunately. One of the big
issues is, therefore, how to rescue
damaged historic buildings after
disaster. One volunteer team, named“Cultural Heritage Rescue” andcomprised of 15 scholars and 400
students from 12 universities in
Taiwan, started to investigate thedamaged historic buildings from the25th. As a pioneering investigation,
more than 1000 buildings were
inspected, and 742 buildings were
investigated and listed. As thesecond step, the team made a list of
222 historic buildings to be protectedfrom the cleaning up activity by
the military on the 27th October,which was very quick. The third step
was to convince the government to
be involved in the recovery. Thenthe team finished up their workby publishing reports on cultural
heritage conservation.
Some grants for temporary
reinforcement of 90 damaged
historic buildings were offeredfrom the government in November.
Technical advise were also provided.
As of the law and regulations
to protect the damaged historicbuildings, the buildings that were
newly listed after the earthquake
were also added to the target.
The government initially funded
40000000 US dollars for therecovery of the national monuments.
They also provided loans forsupports of restoration of private
historic buildings. One of theexamples of the monuments restoredwith the national fund was Jiji train
station, which was located righton the epicentre of the earthquake.
Another one was a very famous
temple that we call the TaiwaneseForbidden City. The local residents
convinced the government topreserve the temple. It took 10 years
to recover the whole structure totally.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan69

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Another important thing is to provide
technical supports and advices after
earthquake. At that time, 6 historicbuildings were approved of total
renovation by the government. In
order to improve the performance forrenovation, the government qualified
85 architects and engineers toprovide expert knowledge. Several
seminars and training courses were
held after the earthquake, and useful
handbooks and manuals were also
published along with them.

70

In the meantime, how to empower
the local capability for preservationof built heritage and prevention ofdisasters was also discussed. We
agreed the usefulness of various
community-based strategies such as
local meetings, in-situ surveys andmapping trainings. In 2005, the lawof cultural heritage conservation wasrevised, and now there are national
funds and loans for local supporting
systems.
Today there are so many different
adopted measures for reconstruction
and reinforcement, and choosing
which to use is a big challenge. We
are now discussing how we shouldpreserve historic buildings andmonuments.
There are currently 7 potential
world heritage sites in Taiwan.
Though Taiwan is not a member of
ICOMOS, we are trying to preserve
our cultural properties for the world.
This year the government is planningto formulate a disaster preparedness

plan for the nationally designated 88
monuments.
The lesson learned from theearthquake was that even if thefinancial support is limited, thepotential of human is infinite.
Taiwan is a member of the global
community, and we are willing toshare our experience with the othernations world-wide.
Presentation3
Speaker: Sue ColeI would like to talk about how wedeal with disasters in the UK. The
structural organization of emergency
planning has changed in the last 10
years. We made arrangements after
the second world war, the cold war
and 9.11 to the national structure that
deals with resilience. The national
structure which looks at resilienceand recovering belongs to the cabinet
office, and it operates regional
governments’ resilient departments
underneath. It is possible for themto call the military, but that is fairly
rare. Usually the emergency service
is consisted of police, fire brigade
and ambulances.
We luckily updated the road maps
and exercises for organizations’capacity building. We are taking astrategy called “Gold, Silver andBronze Approach”, and involving as
many organizations as possible. The
resilience covers natural disasters:snow, fire, earthquake, hurricane,pandemic and others. There are

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
also manmade disasters. We haveaccidents, terrorism, arsons andindustrial actions. Although the UK
has ratified the Haag Convention, we
hope we are not going to be invaded.
Yet the military personnel aresupposed to be aware that culturalproperties must not be destroyed bymilitary actions, and their knowledge
will also help when they engage
in overseas military actions. For
example, church in the business
district in London was once bombedby IRA. It was reconstructed as asymbol of hope after that, and its
religious activities are continued.

buildings for flooding or storms.
It is a problem. There are alreadyso many good plans, but because
the resource is finite they have to
make new protocols to associatewith other organizations that would
provide assistance. A good thing isthat people are very interested inwhat to do for preservation of theircultural heritage. A local volunteer
group with only 10 people, forexample, worked on salvation ofhistoric properties in a small village
which was flooded. We need to keep
promoting such mutual cooperation
more.

We set up the UK resilience website
which I argue you to look at. That
has sections on risk preparedness,
response, recovery and disaster risk
management scenarios on cultural
heritage. We listed out lessons andchallenges. There are discussions inboth high-level words and practicalareas. We have now more andmore people addressing the issues.
Resilience should not be dependent
on a few people. We are promoting“personal responsibility” approach.
We put insurances on our properties
and we take responsibilities on them.
The government cannot support
you with money after the financial
crisis. There is not enough money to
do a lot of things like what we havepreviously done.

The Jurassic Coast World Heritage
Site is a natural site, which isincorporated in the regional resilientplan, and the world heritage
staffs have participated in theexercises. They adopted a plan
to stop pollution by oil spill androoting. The EU funding, whichpays for infrastructure projects,
was made available. However, it isvery difficult to access to culturalprojects. Recently a resilient
project was done by EU, which wasaddressing safety of several historicbuildings, and a perfect report cameout. Yet we still have a long way
to go to figure out how to do this.
We need to set up a European task
force in which cultural heritage isembedded.

Therefore, the national heritage
associate organizations, including
English Heritage, are beginning togive aside retrofitting of historic

I am delighted that Japan has ratified
the Haag Convention. It also deals
with what to do in peaceful times.
The association of the national

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan71

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
committees of Blue Shield has been
doing important works, looking at
how to lobby ratifications of Blue
Shield, how to raise fund, how
to train, how to build capacity of
militaries and civilians and how tomake archives.
The challenge lies incommunication. How do we getpeople to value their cultural
heritage? How do we let them knowthat heritage is something that would
support their daily lives? We need toget a common language, be able toreach out to the global communities
and explain in very simple terms
why these places should beprotected.

72

The ICORP meeting that wejust had is hopefully reachingaway toward doing this. We have
had various meetings alike. We
are promoting cultural heritage
preservation. We hope they willreach across the world through theHaag Convention and the UNESCOWorld Heritage Convention. We will
help establishing knowledge, pulling
together various case studies sothat we can learn from each other’s
mistakes and share best practices.
The collaboration does not have to
be in money; it can be knowledge
and it can be people.

Presentation 4
Speaker: Rohit Jigyasu
As is obvious from the firstpresentation, when one talks
about heritage, he/she talks aboutsomething very close and personal.
Heritage is something that belongs
to people. It is not separated frompeople. Also when one talks about
disaster, one often talks very
personally. On one hand we talkabout something so much local andtouches your heart. Many of us havepersonal experiences as well. Whenan earthquake happened in India
in 2001, ironically it was the day
my son was born, and my wife wasin the area where the earthquake
happened. When I was coming tosend the news that my son was born,
I knew that thing had happened.
Then I was not looking at it as
an expert. I was looking at it as ahuman. I did not know what would
have happened to my family, and I
was sitting in Norway.
When a disaster happens, we experts,
international community or national
governments look at something thatpeople cannot handle from anotherlevel, even though we want to help
them. We are outsiders who do not
feel the pain, but at the same time weare concerned as human beings.
There is a gap that I think we needto bridge. I sometimes feel that ourscientific communities need to findlinks with the ground. As ICORP, I
hope that all of us will consider what

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, JapanICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
we can do as experts on one handand as humans on the other. That
is why in the meeting we were not
only talking about big things but also
about small things that each of us
can do in the year ahead. It is up to
us as conscious human beings to dowhat we can do in our own capacity.
Even in the capacity, if we could linkwith other people or groups, we canbring ourselves together. Whenever
we have this kind of training course
or conference, we get new peoplein our family. When a disaster
happens and some member is feeling
pain, then maybe the other family
members can also feel the pain of
his or her own, and eventually givehelps.
I have been involved in giving
lectures to officers and experts for solong, but I sometimes feel that there
is no reason for giving lectures but
just to think by myself about what I
can do as a person. We need to try tocontribute as individuals first.
Panel Discussion
Panels: Rohit Jigyasu, Sue Cole,
Moe Chiba, Hideki Sunahara
Coordinator: Kanefusa Masuda
Masuda:We had four presentations fromdifferent perspectives. We first had
a presentation from Mr. Sunahara
about the daily efforts of the temple
with more than 1000 years ofhistory in Kyoto on cultural heritage
conservation. For long time Kyoto
has not suffered from hazard, but inthe future we need to be careful asDr. Toki said. How the world willassist Kyoto in time of disaster isso much dependent on how Kyoto
assists the world because we are
not separate. Dr. Chiou talked about
the situation in Taiwan: how thecountry responds to a big disastersuch as the last typhoon from theperspective of how to establish
linkages with heritage owners.
Dr. Cole conveyed wisdom from
Europe. She told us that destructionsof other cultures due to war could be
horrible. UNESCO has recognized
the importance of preventing suchwars from occurring, and it depends
on our will to pursue sustainable
peace. Mr. Sunahara also mentionedthat Toji had suffered from a lotof damages due to warfare. Dr.
Rohit pointed out the links between
the cultural heritage conservation
activities in the global context andcontributions of individuals.
Cole:
I would like to add some more aboutthe Haag Convention. The Haag
Convention targets not only built
heritage but also archives, libraries,
art galleries, museums and others.
The variety of targets requires
methodologies vary as well. The
Haag Convention requirements callon state parties’ preparation in peacetime, and trainings of military andcivilians. The registered buildings
are still quite few, but the reality isthat there are still so many military
conflicts in the world. You usually
start from such properties that have

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan73

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

74

globally recognized values. Then
you need to know whether yourheritage is military’s legitimate
target or not, and you have to makearrangements on either to movesuch heritage or try to stop to be
used for military purposes. This isa big piece of work, and actuallyis something that nobody has doneyet. That is something that we areworking interactively at the moment.
The operation guideline of thesecond protocol came out during
the last committee. Everybody isreally collaborating to create a reallypractical guideline to make sure that
it will actually work both in termsof policies and on the ground. Quite
ironically, the mark of Blue Shield ison the building in Netherland, which
is used for the ministry of defense.
The crucial point of the Haag
Convention is to promote peace andprepare for warfare at the same time,that is: risk preparedness.
Masuda:How do you think the Haag
Convention, whose target is only
limited within Europe so far, will beconcerned with the ideas on cultural
heritage conservation in a peacefulenvironment like Kyoto?
Sunahara:
I believe that such ideas that arecontained in the Haag Convention
will be so important to Kyoto, too.
Even as for Toji, since the culturalproperties imported from China aregradually deteriorating by years,
people have been replicating them

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

for the coming ages, by using very
high techniques. We are more or lessprepared for possible loss of assets
as a temple.

same time. What kind of activities
did the military do in Taiwan after
the last disaster, and what kind of
trainings are there?

Masuda:The Haag Convention focuses on
military conflicts, but even in eventsof disasters there would be military
actions. For example, after the
Haiti Earthquake, militaries fromdifferent countries went to rescue
immediately. How do you think
the Haag Convention can possibly
contribute to preparedness fornatural disasters? What perspectives
are there now?

Chiou:
Actually, we are currently working
on educating the military about
cultural values. Even though inthe traditional realm, the military’s
role was just simply to defend
the homeland, we recognized
the importance of its role forheritage conservation after thelast earthquake. We persuaded themilitary soldiers to conserve their
dormitory buildings, which are
old buildings built by the people’sarmy from China soon after thesecond world war, and therefore arecultural properties. Through that, weenhanced the soldiers’ awareness on
heritage conservation.

Cole:
It is very important to enlighten
military and civilians with valuesof cultural properties. Cultural
heritage itself is a part of a systemof culture which has been formed ina long time, and therefore should beincorporated into the scheme of risk
preparedness, including the trainingof military. Military people andcivilians both should be instructed
for counteractions to the eventof disaster, considering cultural
heritage conservation.
Masuda:One of the main topics today is
response in post-disaster recovery
phase. Considering how to preserve
cultural heritage values throughrecovery, we need to have military
with expert knowledge andtechniques required to preserve
values and achieve recovery at theProceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Masuda:That is a very unique and witty
experiment where the soldiers really
live in heritage buildings.
Cole:
In the UK, we carried out a big-scale
drill for the military at Stonehenge
whose area is 700ha. It was atraining program on how they should
act at a heritage site under a disastersituation.
Masuda:Recently, I often find lines forrecruitment of the Kyoto City
fire department mentioning theimportance of protecting the world

heritage in Kyoto, and obviously it
is motivating the people. I am notsure, but it could possibly be used
for recruitment messages of the selfdefense force of Japan in the future.
Sunahara:
I am feeling a bit awkward with
the new branches of police and fire
department near Toji temple. To
my opinion, it takes a little time forthe temple to coordinate with thosepeople fully.
Masuda;Anyhow, the role of what we callcivil defence is becoming more andmore significant lately.
Now I would like to open thediscussion to the floor and receive
questions from the audience.
Floor:
I would like to ask Mr. Sunahara
whether there is something likegeneral guideline for local people
made by the temple. I know you
are already taking on so many otherroles though.
Sunahara:
We do not have such acomprehensive guideline yet. The
protection of Toji has been prettymuch dependent on voluntary works
by faithful people.
Floor:
I totally understand the importanceof connecting various individuals
and their skills and making
synergies. How can we realize that?

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan75

ICOMOS / ICORP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Cole:
It will depend on whether we canconvince them with the importanceof heritage, and what aspects areimportant. One good example is thenational library in Iraq. The national
library was burnt down 3 days after
the US army invasion started andthe war broke out. The artefacts
preserved were only limited within
the religious properties. It is a good
proof that heritage conservation
depends on priorities of community
people.

76

Rohit:
We need to enhance ourcommunication skills as experts
at different levels. In conservationsites, there are always various
people from various fields who
speak totally different languages,
and communicating with them issometimes very difficult. That is
a very important aspect for us toachieve what Chiba mentioned:
linking theories and practices.
Moe Chiba (floor):
Speaking of priorities and local
values, there is a striking similarity
in the situation in Bhutan and thatof Toji. Some Bhutanese people
are taking the monasteries as more
important than their own houses
and requesting funds from thegovernment. What people think
are important really counts. I am
wondering if there are any cases
where the values of people and theinstitutional definitions are offset.

Cole:
The terms we use in the registrationof world heritage are set up foraddressing the official definitionof the universal values. We needto look at national values and local
values each of which local people
set up. Unless you have supports
from the people around the site, andcommitment of a local community,
your management plan would beeven more difficult.
Kai Weise (floor):
In connection with how to approach
heritage properties, I think one
aspect is much more specific, thatis, there are so many properties that
do not have communities to lookafter. It could be that, for example,
there is a Buddhist site in Pakistanthat has no community to look after
it. That would be the first condition.
You should think about what a sitemanager should do only after having
a specific community to take care ofa specific site.
Masuda:Now I would like to close thissession mentioning the importanceof establishing an international
network of experts. Currently
ICORP is working on establishing a
new platform on the web.

Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan

ANNEX

ANNEX
ICOMOS-ICORP MISSION STATEMENT“ICOMOS-ICORP promotes the protection of cultural heritage
places from the effects of disasters and armed conflict.
ICORP does this through activities related to preparedness, mitigation,
response and recovery phases of disasters and armed conflicts by
A Collaborating with international, national and non-governmental 		organisations to integrate the protection of cultural heritage places into
disaster risk planning
B Creating knowledge, delivering training and building capacity to reduce
the loss of cultural heritage places.
C Identifying, undertaking and reviewing scientific research on disaster riskplanning for cultural heritage places and disseminating best practices
D Developing the instruments to enable ICOMOS to meet its obligations 		
under the 1972 World Heritage Convention regarding risk reduction
E Representing ICOMOS in the Blue Shield organisations (http://archives.
icom.museum/emergency.html)
F Coordinating and bringing to bear the full resources of ICOMOS in the 		
face of disasters
G Ensuring representation within ICORP of all cultures and regions in theworld.”
Contact:
ICORP Secretariat
Research Centre for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
rohit.jigyasu@gmail.com[PDF] Risk preparedness: a management manual for World Cultural 		
Heritage
www.iccrom.org/pdf/ICCROM_17_RiskPreparedness_en.pdf[PDF] Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage
whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-630-1.pdf
Proceedings of the ICOMOS – ICORP Scientific Meeting 24 to 27 September 2010, Kyoto, Japan77

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE 2010

ICOMOS/ICORP SCIENTIFIC MEETING